Bush Picks Miers for Supreme Court Slot

When it comes to the issue of abortion, yes. I want them to judge in favor of the civil rights of the baby to live and against the rights of a mother to murder that baby. Don't you? I would even settle for a judge who would overturn ROE and give the power back to the states to decide. Wouldn't you?

Joseph Botwinick

 

Not me. It doesn't matter if the issue is abortion, euthenasia, or the price of tea in China. A judge should do nothing, absolutely nothing, except interpret the law in accordance with the law and only the law. If the law sucks (and there are quite a few that do), then the judge must still interpret according to that law, whether it sucks or not.

 

John,

The unborn thank you for your allegiance to an unjust and unconstitutional law.

Joseph Botwinick

 

Are there any laws that sanction abortion? Seems to me all the laws are pro-life and are getting ruled unconstitutional because the Constitution's framers gave women the privacy and power over their own fetuses. Of course the Constitution never mentions the specific case of abortion, but if you look at the works of the framers of the Constitution, I don't think the majority would have been in support of abortion or letting gays get married. In fact, I think they might have even hung gays as they did sodomites.

 

Come to mention it, it seems strange that the framers of the Constitution, many of them anyway, had slaves and did not give them equal rights, but that later the very document they wrote and lived under was used to give slaves rights. Luckily they allowed the document to be amended to allow for changing views among the people. The problem is that it's very hard to change the document unless a huge majority of the people want it to be changed.

 

If Roberts and Miers are pro-choice, I hope it does destroy the Republican Party, 40% of which are "evangelical Christians". Let's abandon this lying, suck-egg Party of hypocrites.

 

I didn't realize that Roe v Wade was pro-life. Please explain.

Joseph Botwinick

 

How can you possibly say that? Remember when there was talk of Bruce Babbitt being nominated by then-President Clinton? Remember how Rush Limbaugh was criticizing this pick, noting that Babbitt had never been a judge? I do......

While she may be a bona fide candidate, this hardly qualify this as "another great pick."

Don't disagree with you on this, but the jury is out on this pick. My initial reaction was that this is more of the same cronyism we have come to expect from this Administration.

Regards,
BiR

[ October 03, 2005, 09:55 PM: Message edited by: Baptist in Richmond ]

 

That's my impression as well, thus meeting the criteria for an adequate candidate. </font>[/QUOTE]Yes, I hear Sean Hannity saying this all the time. Rush Limbaugh does too. Could someone please show me any legislation that has actually been written by the courts?

Regards,
BiR

 

If you actually listen to Rush and Hannity, you would know what they were talking about vis-a-vis legislating from the bench. One example is the recent ruling that governments can sieze private property and give it to another private citizen. That should be decided in the legislature, not the judicial. The correct ruling in that case would have supported private property rights per the constitution, and to throw it back on the states to maintain their own laws which are passed through elected officials.

 

Another example would be citing international law and opinion in order to shape the law in our own country.

Joseph Botwinick

 

Again, could you give me some examples where laws were actually created by the Courts?

Regards,
BiR

 

OK..here you go...

Right now, local officials are preparing to condemn the home of Justice Suiter to turn the property over to developers to build the "Lost Liberty Hotel." They can legally do this (i.e. it is LAWful) due to the legal precedent established by the supreme court. The only way that Suiter could stop this, is by persuading his state to write legislation to supercede the law as established by the court decision.

Your attempts to split hairs as to the exact steps taken when the legislature writes laws and when the courts legislate are pointless. The facts are the facts. And the fact is Judge Suiter ruled that his own home can be condemned, and it could happen. The only way to stop it is further legistlation.

 

Roe V Wade

 

BiR said...

You must have picked up on the DEM talking points that went out...to accuse this pick of mere cronyism. If you want a real lesson in cronyism, look at the Clinton administration when he brought all his Arkansas cronies to Washington.

I agree with you on the point that we will have to wait and see on this pick. I certainly would have been more excited with a pick of a clear conservative judge.

 

First of all, I am a Republican.
Secondly, do we really want to compare the two administrations? Are you sure about that? The charge of cronyism is more than simply "DEM talking points that went out."

Interesting.....

Regards,
BiR

 

Thank you, Joseph. I really didn't want to get involved in this thread, but if someone didn't give it as an example pretty soon, I was going to start screaming it from the rooftops!!

 

Hello Joseph:

Was this a response to my question? If it is, then I would have to disagree with you. The Supreme Court did not legislate from the bench with respect to this:

No law was created from the bench. They simply invalidated legislation because they believed that it violated the Fourteenth Amendment.

Justice Rehnquist observed that the decision invalidated "the Texas statute in question." This was interpretation, not legislation.

Regards,
BiR