Just a thought

”Assured of lifetime tenures, these judges show little regard for the authority of the president, the Congress, and the states. They display even less interest in the will of the people.” John McCain

The Washington Post takes McCain to task for his remarks on appointing federal judges. I thought his remarks were exactly what was called for and I was prepared to be impressed until I remembered that the day before he told La Raza that the federal government had shirked its responsibility by not offering amnesty to illegal aliens.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/06/AR2008050602690.html\

The guy has to keep reminding me why I don't like him.

Histories will note this Election cycle as the most infamous one of all.



.

”Assured of lifetime tenures, these judges show little regard for the authority of the president, the Congress, and the states. They display even less interest in the will of the people.” John McCain

The will of the people, the President and Congress means crap in the courtroom. If you are going to play "majority rules", why even have a court?

That is why we have a separation of powers in the first place.

Anyro', this is what I got from McCain's little speech:

"I'll only appoint judges that strictly interpret the Constitution in a manner I agree with."

Also, what is McCain sore about?

Republicans have appointed, what, 12 of the last 14 SCOTUS justices? The Roberts court is the most reactionary and conservative of the past century; the very last thing this country needs is Scalia as the swing vote.

You'd prefer Ruth Baader Meinhoff Ginsburg?

You'd prefer Ruth Baader Meinhoff Ginsburg?

Not terribly. I don't like the idea of using foreign law to shape U.S. law.

I'm just pointing out that the republicans have stacked the court. If they don't like it, whose fault is that?

I am also pointing out that the SCOTUS shouldn't shouldn't show undue regard to the executive and legislative branches.

If I never hear the phrase "activist judge", it will been too soon.

One suspects you may be so desperate for an argument you'd find fault with a ham sandwich.

The republicans have stacked the court, you say. Well, I guess so, but in typical republican fashion, they've botched the job.

Just out of the blue: Kelo v New London, CT. J. P. Stevens, a Ford appointee, wrote the majority opinion which ignored the 5th amendment and cited international law. He was joined by Kennedy (Reagan), Souter (Bush I), Ginsburg and Breyer (both Clinton). Scalia, at least, applies the Constitution as written to the case at hand. I got no problem with Scalia.

I'm with you, OC. Souter and Stevens may be Republican appointees, but they are disasters. Frankly, I don't trust McCain to give us solid judges like Scalia, but rather I think he'll give us Souters and Stevens, and when they muck things up, the TerryRC's of the world will remind us that they were Republican appointments.

The idea of legalized land snatching in violation of the 5th and 14th amendments, as well using foreign and international law in making choices in the USA (it's bad enough that we don't elect the judges, but we have ZERO say over the legislators of other countries) makes me want to vomit, provided of course that the local government does not have the power over THAT as well.

The next president very well could nominate at least 2, an possibly 3 or 4 judges, especially if it's they are a 2 term president.

Which, given our choices, is a sad reality indeed.

Maybe Romney and/or Huckabee should have played the "judicial hand" a little heavier.

That's what I thought Mike. I even started a thread on the old forum but it never got picked up on. It seems like no one wants to discuss what coud happen.

"”Assured of lifetime tenures, these judges show little regard for the authority of the president, the Congress, and the states. They display even less interest in the will of the people.” John McCain...

Well OC do you contend that Justices of the SC should base their opinions on what the above cited persons/bodies' opinions and interests?

Or are they to base their opinions on what the Constitution says?

It seems that either you or I misunderstand the concept of separation of powers and the very foundation of our system if you believe popular and/or political opinion should trump the Constitution.

How about what the constitution acutally says meaning something Sherm?

How about what the constitution acutally says meaning something Sherm?

The Constitution "actually says" whatever the Courts determine that to be. By what authority? By authority of the Constitution, of course.

Of course you're correct, Ziggy. The accuracy of your statement clearly demonstrates the need for appointees to SCOTUS be judges who do not legislate from the bench.

Agreed.

Of course you're correct, Ziggy. The accuracy of your statement clearly demonstrates the need for appointees to SCOTUS be judges who do not legislate from the bench.

"Activist judges" and "legislating from the bench" means "they made a decision that I don't like".

They rule on existing law, they don't write new laws.

I would much rather have that than have the American majority decide what the laws should be.

The average American cares only about bread and circuses and making sure the queers can't marry.

Look at the fiasco in WV with judges. Do you really want to turn the SCOTUS into a popularity contest by electing them, instead?

Why do you all hate the Constitution so much?

TerryRC wrote:Of course you're correct, Ziggy. The accuracy of your statement clearly demonstrates the need for appointees to SCOTUS be judges who do not legislate from the bench.

They rule on existing law, they don't write new laws.

Uh, sorry about that, .... but, ...... the majority opinion submitted by the SCOTUS is "a de facto re-write of an existing Law", (an addendum to ) if said opinion re-interprets the context of an existing Law.

.

TerryRC wrote:Of course you're correct, Ziggy. The accuracy of your statement clearly demonstrates the need for appointees to SCOTUS be judges who do not legislate from the bench.

"Activist judges" and "legislating from the bench" means "they made a decision that I don't like".

They rule on existing law, they don't write new laws.

I would much rather have that than have the American majority decide what the laws should be.

The average American cares only about bread and circuses and making sure the queers can't marry.

Look at the fiasco in WV with judges. Do you really want to turn the SCOTUS into a popularity contest by electing them, instead?

Why do you all hate the Constitution so much?

No, I said what I mean and I mean what I say. We don't need activist judges, we need judges who will intepret the law, not create law.

I come from a state where judges are not elected, they are appointed by the governor and confirmed by the state senate, much the same way it is done at the federal level. That system has its problems too, although it appears to me this system is far worse. This state also elects law enforcement officials. To me that's nuts.

I don't hate the Constitution, I just want to see it adhered to. If we aren't going to follow the Constitution than I say we should just trash it and be done with it. Right now there is a whole lot of talk about the Constitution, but talk is cheap. It is dire need of an overhaul and nobody seems willing to do the work necessary to revise COTUS so it meets our needs in the 21st century.