|Non-war topic..Kerry continues hard run to the left....||ClydeTri|
Apr 9, 2003 11:46 AM
|I am "pro-life", but, I really dont like the idea of any litmus test or one issue deciding who gets on the Supreme Court, with the possible exception of I do believe in "original intent" and not in judicial legislation. The court shouldnt invent new laws as they did in Roe v Wade, that is the responsibility of the legislature IMHO.
|Pro-choice isn't really "hard left"||TJeanloz|
Apr 9, 2003 11:52 AM
|I don't know the exact poll numbers, but I suspect that a pro-choice position is more centric than a run at the hard left. Considering that there are people on both sides of the aisle who support Roe, it hardly seems like pandering to the left to support it. I also think the litmus test argument is weak, and Kerry can easily defend against it by pointing out his vote to approve Scalia. Clearly he has considered more than stance on abortion in choosing Justices in the past. That said, I can hardly blame Kerry for running farther left than Clinton or Gore did; Gore's lack of differentiation from Bush may well have cost him the office.|
|not saying pro-choice is hard left....||ClydeTri|
Apr 9, 2003 11:56 AM
|but this decision to only nominate supreme court justice who will support that idea is hard left, to me anyway...|
|and..I acutally said...||ClydeTri|
Apr 9, 2003 11:57 AM
|"hard run to the left"..which is not the same as "hard left"|
|I'm not going to argue about the definition of "is" (nm)||TJeanloz|
Apr 9, 2003 12:01 PM
Apr 9, 2003 12:00 PM
|I don't agree -- it wouldn't be "hard right" to refuse to appoint a pro-choice justice. I think he was also playing to the crowd to a certain degree. But I don't think it's running hard left to say that you only would support justices who share a similar interpretation of the Constitution that you do. I think that's the perogative of the appointer. But I might be wrong.|
Apr 9, 2003 12:03 PM
|I am a conservative and I would call it a "hard right" position to have such a litmus test for justices on one issue (demanding them all to be against roe v wade)....if I was Prez would I want to know a potential Supreme Court Judge's position on Roe v Wade? yes, but I would also want to know his/her position on many other topics...and hopefully I would weigh them all in my decision making.|
|If the Prez gets to know, does Congress get to know ...||PdxMark|
Apr 9, 2003 2:50 PM
|a potential justice's/judge's position? What happens if the potential justice/judge tells the Prez. his/her position on a topic, but refuses to tell Congress?|
|that probably happens every time||DougSloan|
Apr 9, 2003 7:32 PM
|They could refuse to tell the Senate, or they might equivocate, or Senators might not ask the right question. They are sworn to tell the truth, though.
|This sentence says it all...||DJB|
Apr 9, 2003 1:01 PM
|i ''Litmus tests are politically motivated tests; this is a
i constitutional right. I think people who go to the
i Supreme Court ought to interpret the Constitution as it
i is interpreted, and if they have another point of view,
i then they're not supporting the Constitution, which is
i what a judge does.''
It appears that Kerry wants an activist judiciary that sees a Supreme Court decision as a de facto Constitutional amendment. To me, that just shows his distain for the Constitution.
Of course, he did call for 'regime' change. Maybe he wasn't confused about the meaning of the word after all!
|wow - interpreting the Constitution is amending it??||PdxMark|
Apr 9, 2003 2:45 PM
|ummm, just exactly what do you think Supreme Court justices do other than interpret the Constitution? Look up in its index to see what it says about police interrogation methods?
"Original intent" is one supposed form of interpreting the Constitution, which seems to be sometimes conveniently forgotten by those who supposedly practice original intent.
Interpreting the Constitution means figuring out how it applies to new situations.
The statement you quoted sounds pretty innocuous and almost circular to me. How does he advocate judicial "Constitutional amendments" by that statement? The "as it is interpreted" comment?
|wow - interpreting the Constitution is amending it??||DJB|
Apr 9, 2003 4:23 PM
|i How does he advocate judicial "Constitutional amendments"
i by that statement? The "as it is interpreted" comment?
Yes. I'm taking his comment to mean that once an interpretation is made on a certain subject, then that interpretation should always stand. Which to me would be an amendment.
Of course, that's just my 'interpretation'!
Apr 9, 2003 7:37 PM
|When interpreting, you always look to the words of the law itself, then secondarily to prior interpretations. We have a common law system, which means that published decisions carry the weight of law and control, to some extent, future decisions. The courts usually respect that. However, it's not that rare for prior decisions to be changed outright, or at least modified or "spun" differently.
Technically, decisions to not "amend" the Constitution, but the practical effect can almost be the same.
A true non-activist judge appointed today would leave Roe alone, even if the judge disagreed with the decision.
Apr 9, 2003 9:51 PM
|So as I see it, as schlep who knows nothing. Roe v wade was the work of an activist judgeship? Is that a word and of course I am a shclep. How does one speel schlep, shclep, yada yada yada. Or zoom zoom zoom. Or do the rules of appointment only apply to today?|
|again, in English? nm||DougSloan|
Apr 10, 2003 6:35 AM
Apr 10, 2003 7:26 AM
|I certainly didn't mean to imply that precedence shouldn't be taken into consideration, but I was primarily reacting to the part about
i "...ought to interpret the Constitution as it is
i interpreted, and if they have another point of view, then
i they're not supporting the Constitution, which is what a
i judge does."
That strikes me as going beyond just applying precedence, but giving the opinion the same (or more) weight than the original text.
Hopefully, I'm just overreacting.