I was hoping this wouldn't happen

[slamdunkpro]

[ QUOTE ]
gambling/drugs/prostitution

Im english, but am under the immpression that conservative judges would be more likely to rule against relaxation of laws dealing with the above.

[/ QUOTE ]

O.K. – As a conservative I want Supreme Court Judges that understand that the Constitution is a “Dead” document, it’s purpose is to provide a basic framework for how government operates and also places limits on government power.

What I don’t want are Judges that are going to reinvent the Constitution to fit a trendy political philosophy, or to impose their particular moral views, or to marginalize the document to transfer rights and powers away from the citizenry to the Government.

As far as your issues go and I’ll throw in another one – abortion: In my opinion these are all State’s rights issues and should not be dealt with at the Federal level. As long as the States don’t make laws that violate the Constitution, The Fed should stay out.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
Democrats don't filibuster someone because of the color of their skin.

[/ QUOTE ]

Look at bush's nominees that have been filibustered. They're mostly minorities or women. The Democrats think they have the right to be the sole benefactors of minorities, and see Bush's nominations as unfair, since they detract from their big selling point to these groups.

[JoshuaMayes]

[ QUOTE ]
Conservatives please explain how you occupy the following positions at the same time.

I want a small government that dosnt intrude into peoples lives and returns resposibility to the individual. I also hope Bush appoints a conservative judge that uses the power of the state to curtail individuals choices about any number of life style choices.


[/ QUOTE ]

Conservative judges do not (on the whole) use the power of the state to curtail individual choices. Conservative judges tend to vote in favor of limiting federal power by enforcing the textual limitations on the power of Congress. They also tend to be against judicial intervention in difficult social issues, such as abortion, capital punishment, drug use, and gay rights, unless the Constitution explicitly speaks to the issue (as with freedom of assembly and speech).

As the Constitution says nothing about most difficult social issues, the Court has no business interfering in state political processes and curtailing state decisionmaking on these divisive issues. In short, Conservatives believe in enforcing the Constitution as written. Doing so does not use the power of big government to limit individual rights. It involves a return to the state of the law before the New Deal Court's "switch in time" and the Warren Court's unbridled exercise of judicial, which forced liberal policy preferences upon the nation under the guise of contitutional interpretation.

[JoshuaMayes]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It was was primarily conservative judges who voted that California had the right to regulated medical marijuana.

[/ QUOTE ]

What ??

You mean to say that conservative judges were in favor of medical pot and liberal judges against it?

Where and when did that happen?

[/ QUOTE ]

Raich

Dissent

[touchfaith]

This is fairly funny watching the 'conservatives' here talk out of both sides of their mouths.

Stop trying to hide your hatred for Human Rights under the viel of "it's a social issue".

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
Look at bush's nominees that have been filibustered. They're mostly minorities or women. The Democrats think they have the right to be the sole benefactors of minorities, and see Bush's nominations as unfair, since they detract from their big selling point to these groups.

[/ QUOTE ]

More importantly, look at the person being filibustered politics. The Republicans are crying racism to try to make the filibustering look bad. In every case where a person has been filibustered, you don't have to look very hard to see why they're being filibustered; you simply have to look at their record. The Democrats even make it easy because they'll point out for you what, exactly, about their record/stand on issues that they find objectionable.

Its simply a cheap political tactic to assume race is the issue when the people being held up have strong issue reasons that Democrats would find objectionable.

Its quite easy to see how this works:
Lets say the GOP picks a judge that wants to repeal a Woman's Right To Choose... and they pick a Judge who is black. The Democrats fiercely oppose the candidate for the quite obvious reason... but the Republicans will pretend that the reason he/she is being opposed is becauses the person is black. Its just cheap.

I wouldn't put it past this admin. to go through all the candidates they have with the most politically objectionable policies (to the Left) and select the one who is a minority simply because they can do this tactic.

I'd like to think that most wouldn't fall for it, but there are a lot of gullible people out there.

[Felix_Nietsche]

The supreme court is a federal branch.

Gambling:
A conservative/originalist FEDERAL judge would rule that gambling is a state's right issue. There are 50 US States. Some US states have gambling and some do not.

Drugs:
A true conservative/originalist FEDERAL judge would rule that drugs trade within a state is a state's right issue. In the recent medical marijuana ruling in California, all the conservative judges (except one) voted pro-pot (to uphold Californias's right to control medical marijuana). It was liberal judges who voted to make it a federal crime (anti-pot).

Prostitution:
A conservative/originalist FEDERAL judge would rule that prostitution is a state's right issue. Prositution is legal in parts of Nevada yet not in other states.

Now...STATE judges are sworn to uphold their state's constitutions. Since there are 50 US states, there are 50 different state constitutions. If the state representatives vote to keep drugs, gambling, or prostitution illegal....then as long as it does not violate their state's constitution...then STATE JUDGES must support those laws. Honorable judges will rule whether a law is constitutional or not...DESPITE their personal views. Dishonorable judges will ignore whether a law is constitutional (or not) and make rulings based on their views which bypasses the voters and the legislative branch. These renegade judges have been running amok the last 100 years of the USA history. In the last 50 years they have become even bolder in their abuses. Control of the US Federal Supreme Court has HUGE consequences.

[natedogg]

[ QUOTE ]

- supports totally free and unrestricted trade and capital flows because this facilitates the war against unemployment (even when this means the loss of his job to an unknown Chinese or Indian person, for one tenth of an American wage).

[/ QUOTE ]

Surely you don't advocate trade protectionism do you? Not even the really shrill partisan liberal economists think that way. Trade protectionism hurts the economy that does it.

natedogg

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
FYI: Many of the asset seizure/forfeiture laws were originated by Democrats.



Why would you think I'd have a second's hesitation in seriously booing the Democrats who did that ?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think you would hesitate to do so. I posted the information merely to illustrate that it is not accurate to characterize such assaults on our rights and liberties as coming primarily from conservatives.

[JoshuaMayes]

[ QUOTE ]
This is fairly funny watching the 'conservatives' here talk out of both sides of their mouths.

Stop trying to hide your hatred for Human Rights under the viel of "it's a social issue".

[/ QUOTE ]

When it comes to judicial philosophy, I am a conservative. On matters of policy, I am a libertarian. There is nothing inconsistent in the two views. One can believe, as a policy matter, that drugs, prostitution and gambling should be legal and that homosexuals should have the right to do as they please, and still hold the view that the Supreme Court has no business mandating those policy preferences (or any others) for the nation.