Apparently, for liberals, judges are for pushing their liberal agenda:
“I think he is the wrong judge at the wrong time in the wrong place,” said Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., a longtime liberal stalwart. “I do not believe he is going to be part of the whole movement of the continued march towards progress in this […]
Archive for the 'Judicial Nominees' Category
Jan30th2006
Jan30th2006
Fox News reports:
To more effectively oppose Supreme Court nominees in the future, Democrats need to convince the public “their values are at stake” rather than use stalling tactics to try to thwart the president, said a senator who opposes Samuel Alito’s confirmation.
“We need to recognize, because Judge Alito will be confirmed, that, if we’re […]
Jan12th2006
Yahoo reports:
WASHINGTON - Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito turned aside Democratic attacks on his judicial record and credibility at contentious confirmation hearings Wednesday that left his wife in tears. …
Under persistent questioning, Alito also declined for a second straight day to say whether he believes, as he did in 1985, that the Constitution contains no […]
Dec21st2005
California Prison Inmates Security Tossed Aside By Social Engineering
Published by in (modern day) Liberalism, General, Hispanics (Minority Issues) and Judicial Nominees. 15 CommentsA friend of mine notified me of California’s recent decision to “Curtail Racial Segregation” in the prison system. According to the Los Angeles Times article, here, “the state had little choice except to abandon the practice after losing a decision in the U.S. Supreme Court in February”. As I have written about […]
Dec15th2005
“The worst thing about the Living Constitution is that it will destroy the Constitution. You heard in the introduction that I was confirmed, close to 19 years ago now, by a vote of 98 to nothing. The two missing were Barry Goldwater and Jake Garnes, so make it 100. I was known at that time […]
Dec14th2005
” If you don’t believe in originalism, then you need some other principle of interpretation. Being a non-originalist is not enough. You see, I have my rules that confine me. I know what I’m looking for. When I find it — the original meaning of the Constitution — I am handcuffed. If I believe that […]
Dec13th2005
“If you believe, however, that the Constitution is not a legal text, like the texts involved when judges reconcile or decide which of two statutes prevail; if you think the Constitution is some exhortation to give effect to the most fundamental values of the society as those values change from year to year; if you […]
Dec12th2005
“My Constitution is a very flexible Constitution. You think the death penalty is a good idea — persuade your fellow citizens and adopt it. You think it’s a bad idea — persuade them the other way and eliminate it. You want a right to abortion — create it the way most rights are created in […]
Dec8th2005
“Now, in asserting that originalism used to be orthodoxy, I do not mean to imply that judges did not distort the Constitution now and then, of course they did. We had willful judges then, and we will have willful judges until the end of time. But the difference is that prior to the last 50 […]
Dec7th2005
“Oh, one other example about how not just the judges and scholars believed in originalism, but even the American people. Consider the 19th Amendment, which is the amendment that gave women the vote. It was adopted by the American people in 1920. Why did we adopt a constitutional amendment for that purpose? The Equal Protection […]
Dec6th2005
“I am one of a small number of judges, small number of anybody — judges, professors, lawyers — who are known as originalists. Our manner of interpreting the Constitution is to begin with the text, and to give that text the meaning that it bore when it was adopted by the people. I’m not a […]
Nov14th2005
Karl Rove’s Speech At The Federalist Society
Published by in General and Judicial Nominees. 0 CommentsIf you want to know what motivates conservatives when it comes to judges, pay close attention to Rove’s well said speech below, I paste it in full.
Nov12th2005
“[In] a democracy, it is not the function of law to establish any more social policy than what is fairly expressed by legislation, enacted through prescribed democratic procedures. It troubles Smith, but does not at all trouble me — in fact, it pleases me — that giving the words of the Constitution their normal meaning […]
Nov7th2005
Charles Krauthammer, writing in the Washington Post, puts Alito’s ruling in Planned Parenthood v. Casey on the constitutionality of Pennsylvania’s spousal notification requirement in perspective.
He writes:
Distorting Sam Alito
By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, November 4, 2005; Page A23
Pop quiz: Which of the following abortion regulations is more restrictive, more burdensome, more likely to lead more women to forgo […]
Nov4th2005
“We may be confident, I think, that a Justice Alito, like Chief Justice John Roberts, will not vote to create new and hitherto unsuspected constitutional rights. He will not share the extreme liberationist philosophy, one of the hangovers from the 1960s, that characterizes the current Court majority. But, also like Roberts, we do not know […]
Nov3rd2005
“I have to say that I am sympathetic to the reasoning behind Alito’s opinion. I firmly believe that no government should have the power to compel a woman to endure childbirth if she decides she doesn’t want to. I have wrestled with the competing claims–that one wins. But laws regarding notification don’t presume that power. […]
