Quote Of The Day

“For all too many years, in too many cases, we’ve seen non-elected judges imposing their own values and policy views and disregarding the democratic rights of the people. From the free exercise of religion in public places, to the pledge of allegiance, to issues of life itself, some judges are acting like legislators. In two national campaigns, George W. Bush ran on a promise to nominate judges who will faithfully interpret the Constitution and the laws of our country. He’s kept that promise, and he’s given the nation two outstanding members of the Supreme Court, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito. (Applause.) In this second term, the President will continue to appoint men and women who understand that judges must be servants of the law, and not legislate from the bench”. –Vice President Dick Cheney, visiting CPAC

14 Responses to “Quote Of The Day”


  • Kjerringa mot Strommen

    You’re joking, right?

  • Richard Thomas

    Cheney said:

    “..George W. Bush ran on a promise to nominate judges who will faithfully interpret the Constitution and the laws of our country…”

    What does it mean to faithfully interpret the Constitution and the laws of our country?

  • Is that why the Republican party nominates judges from the Federalist Society?

  • Yep, and one could only hope they nominate many more from such a fine organization. :-)

  • Richard Thomas

    Whether you call it Originalism or Strict Constructionism, it all comes down to:
    “Interpret the document to suit my needs.”

    The Constitution, like other documents, is made up of words and can be interpreted in various way by various people. To say that there is only one way, the original way, to interpret it is ludicrous.

    To disprove Originalism, all you need to do is look at how those who claim to be Originalists ruled on laws or interpreted the Constitution.
    For example, here are members of the Federalist Society arguing over domestic surveliance.

    Thomas Jefferson was a ‘strict constuctionist,’ so if you believe in that doctrine then you would believe that a National Bank or the Federal Reserve is unconstitutional.

    “Hamilton’s next objective was to create a Bank of the United States, modeled after the Bank of England. A national bank would collect taxes, hold government funds, and make loans to the government and borrowers. One criticism directed against the bank was “unrepublican” -it would encourage speculation and corruption. The bank was also opposed on constitutional grounds. Adopting a position known as “strict constructionism,” Thomas Jefferson and James Madison charged that a national bank was unconstitutional since the Constitution did not specifically give Congress the power to create a bank.”

  • I don’t want to give the impression that I think originalism philosophy somehow solves all judicial problems, or that somehow when judges all become originalist that they will all start voting unanimously, all originalism gives you is a frame work from which to look at the constitution, and from that frame work, there still will be fierce disagreements.

    But one thing that is unique with ‘originalism’ as a judicial philosophy compared to its alternative, the ‘living constitution’ judicial philosophy is that originalist judicial philosophy tends to – not always but more so than living constitution – leave moral issues in the hands of the voters. In other words, if you want gay marriage, vote for it, don’t push it down the countries throat through judges, same goes with all other moral issues, like abortion, the death penalty, and so forth. Whereas the living constitution judicial philosophy makes judges the arbiters of morality, originalism makes voters the arbiters of morality, and it is that fundamental difference that makes me a supporter of originalism.

  • I don’t feel comfortable with the choice of either judges or voters deciding whether it is proper for adults to engage in consensual contracts and voluntary associations.

  • Neither do I, but I feel that voters are the lesser of the two evils.

  • Neither do I, but I feel that voters are the lesser of the two evils.

    -HP

    Of course you do.

    If you take many of these decisions out of the hands of groups the individual is left to decide. Who are you or by right do you claim the power to stop a woman from aborting her fetus?

  • Who are you or by right do you claim the power to allow a woman to abort her fetus?

    The question goes in both directions.

  • Richard Thomas

    “Neither do I, but I feel that voters are the lesser of the two evils. ”

    The lesser of two evils is still evil.

  • Yes, but it is less evil.

Leave a Reply