Liberal Judges

[ACPlayer]

It is a good day that the far too liberal judge - Estrada - appointed by Pres Bush has withdrawn his name.

True conservatives can rejoice.

[Wake up CALL]

It's a sad day when a group of liberals can coerce a fine man like Estrada to withdraw from consideration without a hearing from the full Senate.

[MMMMMM]

Indeed the Republicans never filibustered to such an extent...not once the process had reached the point it had with Estrada. I think the Democrats acted shamelessly and in very bad faith. Furthermore objecting to interpreting the Constitution literally is a flawed outlook. The Constitution was meant only to be amended when truly necessary. It is not to be interpreted as may be convenient according to whim or popular sentiment. In fact if it were, we would not have a Constitution at all, but merely a rolling voting process on all issues. The framers of the Constitution were far wiser than many of today's relativists. It is the Constitution which makes possible our democratic system; it is the Constitution which contains within it a brilliant and enduring set of checks and balances of power--even checks and balances against the oddity of occasional tyranny by the majority. Anyone seeking to alter or subvert the Constitution for political gain should be considered to be a traitor against the very principles our country was founded upon. I consider the endless filibustering beyond shameful; it was despicable.

[adios]

Why more Americans aren't outraged by the Democratic party shenanigans in the Senate regarding judicial nominations is a mystery to me. Perhaps I'm reading the "tea leaves" wrong. I sure hope so.

[Boris]

I'm kind of curious about why the Democrats were so anti Estrada. Perhaps you can enlighten me? I did a quick web search and it seems his major ideological flaw is that he supports anti-loitering ordinances. IMO those kind of laws are unconstitutional (1st amendment, freedom of assembly) but what do I know? maybe the Dems were afraid of another Clarence Thomas.

[Boris]

gawd. what the hell are you talking about? When was the last time we amended the Constitution?

[MMMMMM]

Good question.

Amendments are not easily made on mere whims or to better fit with passing political climes. Amendments are, and should be, very seriously considered and rare. The rest of the Constitution should be interpreted literally; if it needs amending, then amend it; if it doesn't, don't pervert its true meaning or intent to satisfy today's fickle weather.

[adios]

Dems Blame White House for Estrada (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,96437,00.html)

[ACPlayer]

I will tell you why true conservatives, like myself, are opposed. We dont know who the guy is except that Pres Bush likes him. The last time that happened we got Souter.


Tt is only the knee jerk Republican supporters who like him and will do anything that the administration asks. These days instead of sending a Republican to congress, you could send a $2 rubber stamp. It would be just as effective.


I am hereby drawing the line, that to support the Republican position automatically is not true conservativism. Specially with this administration which is NOT conservative.

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]

I am hereby drawing the line, that to support the Republican position automatically is not true conservativism. Specially with this administration which is NOT conservative.


[/ QUOTE ]

Then why don't the Democrats just nominate President Bush for their Presidential nominee?

[MMMMMM]

Amazing that judges who are doing precisely what their duties call for--appellate court judges making decisions according to the law instead of their personal preferences, in accordance with their oaths--are viewed by some as "extreme ideologues." (Corzine is all wet).

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/printts20030312.shtml

Let's not forget, too, Dick Gephardt's promise:

“WHEN I’M PRESIDENT, WE’LL HAVE EXECUTIVE ORDERS to overcome any wrong thing the Supreme Court does tomorrow….”

http://www.hollywoodhalfwits.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=6736

I'm just now checking out their home page and star galleries...

[ACPlayer]

Because the administration does not align itself with Democratic ideals.

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
When was the last time we amended the Constitution?

[/ QUOTE ]

The twenty-sixth amendment to the constitution granted the right of 18 year olds to vote. This happened in the late 60’s or around 1971. The 1972 presidential election was the first that 18 year olds could vote. The ERA never made it and died in some southern state legislature (Florida?) in the mid-70's.

Since World War II the constitution has had 5 articles (amendments) added to it.

And let us all drink to the 21st Amendment!

-Zeno

[brad]

bush said he will support and sign renewal of 'assault weapons' ban which will outlaw even semi automatic shotguns. (source, gun owners of america)

http://www.gunowners.org/

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
Because the administration does not align itself with Democratic ideals.

[/ QUOTE ]

And a very good thing it is that they do not!

[John Cole]

M,

If it needs to be interpreted literally, then it really doesn't need to be "interpreted" at all. We could just have one person who can read pretty well tell us what it says. Hell, both of us read good, so we could be the judge. Maybe instead of "judge," one of us could be called simply "the reader."

Think for a minute what the average high school principal does with Robert Frost's "The Road Not Taken" when he or she invariably reads it a high school graduation. Most principals can't even read it literally, let alone apppreciate the poem's irony. Discerning the "true meaning" of any text just ain't that easy, and this doesn't begin to address the question of where the meaning lies. Is it in the text? Or is it in the reader?

John

[brad]

oh please with all commentary (fed., antifed. papers), orig. intent is clear.

those who seek 2 cloud issue seek 2 undrmine const.

[adios]

My understanding is that filabusters have never been used to block judicial nominations. Estrada is well qualified for the job, it's just that the Democrats don't like his political philosophy. I read in another article (I can dig it up if so desired) that 4 Democrats who he served with in the Clinton administration recommended him partly for his impartiality. The comments from the Democrats regarding the reasons for the filabuster are laughable. If the shoe was on the other foot i.e. if a politically liberal nominee made by a Democratic president was blocked by a Republican filabuster the Democrats would be screaming bloody murder. The precedent set the Democrats here is ominous IMO. It remains to be seen what will actually happen when the shoe actually is on the other foot. Will the Republicans repudiate the Democratic party precedent of filabustering when a Democratic party president nominates a liberal judge that is qualified for the job? Or will the Republicans return to the tradional way and voice their opposition, try and convince potential swing votes from acroos the aisle to see it their way, but eventually bring the nomination to a vote. If the Republicans play the filabuster card, we are in for a prolonged period of gridlock regarding judicial appointments.

[John Cole]

brad,

See William O. Douglas on the Dennis decision.

John

[andyfox]

Parts of the constitution are very vague. It is not possible to "interpret" it literally. The framers intended that the constitution should be interpreted according to the needs of the time. Madison specifically said so and, so that people would not be tempted to use the invented concept of "original intent" deliberately withheld publication of his note on the deliberations of the Constitutional Convention for the first fifty years of the country's existence.

[andyfox]

This is absolutely false. There was much disagreement at the Constitutional Convention on many important issues. So the "original intent" of one faction might have been completely the opposite of the original intent of another. Plus we only have the information about those who spoke out on an issue. Those who did not speak out might have agreed or disagreed with the final wording in the Constitution.

The Federalist Papers were written by three partisans.

Original intent is an invented concept that doesn't exist. The framers clearly intended that the Constitution's basic principles, especially on litigation, be interpreted according to the needs of the times.

[ACPlayer]

It does not seem to make sense to literally interpret a 200 year old document. Besides as has been pointed out interpretations are different. Scalia may interpret the document one way and O'connor another.


The country should evolve rather than live with 18th century thoughts. However, attempts should be made to follow the intent and principles where possible. Although all attempts to do so are of course subject to human vagaries as well as the cycles of the moods of the population at large.

[adios]

"The framers intended that the constitution should be interpreted according to the needs of the time."

I guess that might be the reason challenges to the Patriot Act might not be successful.

[adios]

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Does it give the people the right to bear machine guns, bazookas or bombs for instance? If the govt can restrict these types of Arms without infringing on the right of the people to keep and bear Arms why can't the govt restrict the public from purchasing hand guns? Clearly there's a lot of room to interpret this ammendment for instance.

[MMMMMM]

These are good points but the Constitution is a legal document. Legal documents are of a special class, where precise reading and literal meanings are particularly important.

[MMMMMM]

I disagree, ACPlayer.

The Constitution is constructed in such a manner that it can change and evolve with the times. That process for change is the Amendment process. If there is sufficient good cause to make a change by Amendment, then we have that capability. In my opinion this is much preferable to interpreting the Constitution as one wishes for the expediency or mood of the moment.

Also, the vital safeguards built into the Constitution are greatly lessened in effect if the Constitution can be interpreted merely at whim or convenience.

[J.R.]

I always thought there was a difference between interpreting and ignoring.

[ACPlayer]

I dont believe the consititution changes, just the interpretations. Clearly all the amendments are subject to interpretation and the interpretation reflects the mood of the country. I believe there is a thesis which points out that the interpretation by the SC have some lag over public sentiment.

Even with the federalist and other documentation (some of which I have tried to read) it is clear that this is all interpretation by the courts. So Roe v Wade is the law of the land, but in 10 years it may not be and in another 50 it may come back. Does that mean we have thrown out privacy rights -- no just reinterpreted them in the light of social evolution. And that is a good thing -- IMO.

[Munga30]

You really have no idea what you are talking about, do you.

[MMMMMM]

Well, I don't think the Constitution is a poem (not that John Cole does;-)).

[brad]

well antifed papers like 10 times bigger.

i chllenge u to find anyone who said, we need to disarm the people.

i take it back, they said it about slaves and indians.

[MMMMMM]

Good point Tom.

Anyone who opposed to the Patriot Act might wish to question whether a literal interpretation of the Constitution might have prevented the Patriot Act's passage or might provide grounds for its nullification.

I don't know the answers, but I do think it's odd that many of the same people who are opposed to the Patriot Act are also in favor of "flexible" interpretations of the Constitution.

Folks, you can't have it both ways. If the you want ironclad protections of your civil rights and liberties you better be in favor of interpreting those same rights and protections in the Constitution/Bill Of Rights literally.

Likewise, if you want the system of checks and balances of power within our governmemt to continue to exist (that is, neither the legislative, executive or judicial branch can grab overwhelming power), you ought to be in favor of interpreting much of the rest of the Constitution literally as well.

[brad]

well why cant the gov regulate free speech in case you might say something wrong?

[adios]

Glad you understand my point. If memory serves there's been an ongoing debate for a long time in how rigidly the Constitution should be interpreted. I posted the 2nd Amendment. A very broad interpretation could result in laws severely restricting the ownership of guns. A broad interpretation of the 4th amendment could conceivably expand police powers to search private citizens properties.

[adios]

"well why cant the gov regulate free speech in case you might say something wrong?"

Yep given that the Constitution is interpreted broadly enough.

[brad]

well i was unclear. i meant prohibit certain types of speech, in case they will cause trouble. (ie, political speech).

i have to say modern era agrees with you. justice department has publicly stated they will use terrorism laws in any case they can dream up any kind of applicibility.

you know the laws where US citizens are stripped of citizenship and held incommunicado.

after all, they're not god given rights, so they can be taken away. and btw, they apply only to american citizens, so once we strip that away, presto, its secret indefinite detention.

the framers of constitution, its common fact, but little known, were greatly in favor of secret arrests and imprisonment.

[adios]

"i have to say modern era agrees with you. justice department has publicly stated they will use terrorism laws in any case they can dream up any kind of applicibility."

Therein lies the problem of a very broad interpretation of the Constitution no?

[Munga30]

I agree. Nor is it a code containing a systematic recitation of the complete set of rules by which our nation is to be governed.

[brad]

'A broad interpretation of the 4th amendment could conceivably expand police powers to search private citizens properties.'

already happening actually.

1) warrantless checkpoints for autos (ok they may have a contractual out here via drivers license)

2) asset forfeiture seizure laws

3) public housing has been deemed to be a warrantless no probable cause search area (newspapers)

4) some parts of the country warrants are issued for whole subdivisions or blocks. (newspapers)

5) some joint county task forces claim they dont need warrants (saw this in the newspaper as i did 4)

6) also some areas they survey property with helicopters and if they spot 'suspicious' plants, a warrantless but i guess probable cause search is made. (newspapers)

[brad]

tom they need to keep us safe.

starting next year (after election tho) all newborns index fingers are going to be amputated at birth. (hey we wack off foreskin /images/graemlins/smile.gif )

i hope the feminists dont run with this tho and insist the whole package be lopped off /images/graemlins/smile.gif for their safety /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[MMMMMM]

It is not a complete code; that's why certain matters are specifically left to be determined by States rather than by the Federal Government.

I agree that some parts of the Constitution may be written so as to allow for some interpretation. That however doesn't mean that all or even most parts are. Much is very specifically and clearly written.

[MMMMMM]

brad, in the case of asset seizure/forfeiture without proof I am not aware of any "broad interpretation" of the Constitution which makes these laws or tactics allowable. I suspect they are simply unconstitutional.

[brad]

tell that to a judge see if you get your money/property back.

[Munga30]

nt

[Wake up CALL]

Someone in this thread wrote: "you know the laws where US citizens are stripped of citizenship and held incommunicado."

I've seen no evidence of this has anyone else here? I do remember resident aliens, illegal aliens and foreign Nationals being held in such a manner but not US citizens.

[brad]

well its formalized in not yet passed in victory act, not sure if its in patriot act.

but jose padilla is a US citizen, being held with no charges, no attorney, arrested in chicago (after deboarding a plane i think if that makes any difference), charged as enemy combatant, which is a de facto stripping of his citizenship.

http://www.chargepadilla.org/ , first link that popped up.

http://www.cato.org/dailys/08-21-03.html , theres a good one

[Wake up CALL]

My thanks to whoever posted link Jose Padilla (http://www.cato.org/dailys/08-21-03.html) . I have a question though, if noone has seen this guy, or knows exactly where he is, and he hasn't spoken to an attorney, can we be sure he really exists and has been unlawfully detained? Now if we choose to believe he really exists and is being detained it appears that a court has already ruled that his detention is legal since there is a case pending before U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in New York. The detention (if it exists) must be lawful, at least for the moment.

[MMMMMM]

That's just my point. And the people who are most in favor of "flexible" interpretations of the Constitution are also often paradoxically the same people who are rightly horrified at government/police wielding unconstitutional powers. Well wake up and realize there is a correlation, I would say to them.

[brad]

yeah i agree with you except groups like feminists freakin love what is happening and would love to live in a police state.

[andyfox]

I challenge you to find any framer who correctly anticipated what life would be like over 200 years later.

The original Constitution that came out of the Convention did not contain a bill of rights.

We have a lot of people in this country who are being shot and, apparently, a lot of people who are protected from being shot because they themselves are armed. Who has been disarmed?

[andyfox]

Maybe. A flaweed document can lead to bad things.

[andyfox]

I think therein lies the problem with the Constitution. As you correctly point out, the 2nd Amendment, for example, is not clear in its meaning. Many items in the Constitution are likewise deliberately vague and therefore must be subject to interpretation. Original intent is a faulty approach because a) there was no one original intent [there were disagreements among the delegates to the Constitutional Convention and we are not aware of the feelings about all attendees, only those who went on the record. (As brad points out, there is a much larger record of what the anti-federalists thought)]; and b) "literally" applying a document written in compromise among competing interests 200 years later will inevitably lead to problems.

[andyfox]

Only the procedural parts are clearly written. (And some of that was botched; see the election of 1804.) Those parts that can be litigated are vague, and deliberately so.

[brad]

come on you know the eventual plan is to go way of australia and canada.

josh sugarman of handgun control, inc. said it himself, as did sarah brady.

btw, read any real research on guns, like by john lott, and see that widespread gun ownership decreases crime, no qustion about it. and if having accidental deaths from guns is such a big problem, then kids football is a bigger problem cuase more kids die of that. (although to be honest this may not include gang bangers who although are under 18 are not children and are not shot on 'accident' )

'I challenge you to find any framer who correctly anticipated what life would be like over 200 years later.'

the guy who said that if you give up liberty in order to gain (temporary) safety you end with netither liberty nor security . /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[brad]

yes but i dont think anyone objected to the 2nd amendment and personal right of self defense.

actually the people who supported it but werent sure it needed to be an amendment were the ones who insisted on 9th and 10th amendments.

of course none of that is applicable now as we live in a completely diffferent form of governemtn.

[MMMMMM]

What? Are you saying that even all Amendments in the Bill of Rights are vague or not clearly defined? I agree that some such as the 2nd are somewhat difficult to fully and clearly interpret, but what of others? And if that's not part of what you are saying, then please elaborate or clarify.

[Six_of_One]

Hey, don't forget the 27th Amendment. I don't remember exactly what it says, something about what Congress has to do in order to give themselves raises or something...it was ratified sometime in the '90s.

[andyfox]

I didn't ask you what Josh Sugarman or Sarah Brady's plan was, I asked you who has been disarmed. I also never said that accidental shootings are a big problem. In fact, I included a statement that pro-gun advocates often use: that many people are apparently portected from gun violence by virtue of them having guns themselves. If this is indeed true, then there must not be widespread disarmorment.

Again, I ask you, who has been disarmed?