|
|
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 3,290
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 3,290 |
Originally posted by Corbett:
He said that as a judge who was under the supreme court, not IN the supreme court. Being under the supreme court left him with no choice since the supreme court had already ruled. So in theory, he could vote to overturn it as a supreme court judge, if it came to it.
Sure, he certainly could, but then I'd wonder why he bothered with all the stuff about "personal beliefs" and "precedent."
Davo, I must be mistaken that one of the big neocon rallying cries is "activist judges legislating from the bench," and that one of Bush's major agendas is to reverse that "trend" by installing hardline conservative federal judges.
E0 #36
'95 Ranger
'82 Honda CX500
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 7,117
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 7,117 |
Originally posted by Viss1:
... by installing hardline conservative federal judges.
No. He is appointing judges that will interpret the application of the Constitution to a particular case. This candidate will be originalist as has been discussed in the media. Naturally, as a conservative leader with a conservative House & Senate, the candidate will have conservative personal views. Those views will not necessarily play a major roll in rulings as an originalist will seek to confirm the founding fathers intent, not impose his own conscience on the social climate.
A 'HARD LINER' will not be confirmed, so you needn't worry yourself about that.
Must be that jumbly-wumbly thing happening again.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 6,198
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 6,198 |
Originally posted by TourDeForce:
No. He is appointing judges that will interpret the application of the Constitution to a particular case. This candidate will be originalist as has been discussed in the media.
Is there any wonder why the only judges who can interpret the Constitution correctly also happen to be 'hard-line conservatives'. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 3,290
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 3,290 |
Originally posted by TourDeForce:
This candidate will be originalist as has been discussed in the media. Naturally, as a conservative leader with a conservative House & Senate, the candidate will have conservative personal views.
Nominees who are devoutly religious and consistently decide cases in favor of rolling back recent legal history to match their concept of what the founding fathers intended are pretty much the definition of "hardline conservative."
E0 #36
'95 Ranger
'82 Honda CX500
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 6,198
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 6,198 |
Originally posted by Viss1:
Nominees who are devoutly religious and consistently decide cases in favor of rolling back recent legal history to match their concept of what the founding fathers intended are pretty much the definition of "hardline conservative."
Wow, that is one of the dumbest things I've ever heard you say, and that's saying a lot!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 3,290
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 3,290 |
Originally posted by Davo:
Wow, that is one of the dumbest things I've ever heard you say, and that's saying a lot!
Please enlighten me then, o great political scholar, on your definition of hardline conservatism as it applies to the federal judicary.
E0 #36
'95 Ranger
'82 Honda CX500
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 6,198
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 6,198 |
Hmmmm...'hardline' anything should not apply to the interpretation of the Constitution: you either interpret it properly or you don't. Note in my post a few above that I did not say that there exists a such thing as hardline conservative interpretation of the Constitution; I merely stated that most judges and justices who interpret the Constitution correctly also happen to be considered 'hardline conservatives'.
Even if you apply the usual assumptions about political ideology and the judiciary, you were completely wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 3,290
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 3,290 |
Originally posted by Davo:
Note in my post a few above that I did not say that there exists a such thing as hardline conservative interpretation of the Constitution; I merely stated that most judges and justices who interpret the Constitution correctly also happen to be considered 'hardline conservatives'.
Yes, I see the major distinction there. Hardline conservative judges who interpret the Constitution exist, but we're not allowed to call their decisions "hardline conservative" when they apply that ideology to their decisions. 
In other words, in Davoland, judges who interpret the Constitution "correctly" are hardline conservatives, but I'm "dumb" for saying hardline conservatives match your interpretation of said Constitution. 
Quote:
Even if you apply the usual assumptions about political ideology and the judiciary, you were completely wrong.
I won't even address this exept to say your recent posts speak for themselves.
E0 #36
'95 Ranger
'82 Honda CX500
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 6,198
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 6,198 |
Originally posted by Viss1:
Yes, I see the major distinction there. Hardline conservative judges who interpret the Constitution exist, but we're not allowed to call their decisions "hardline conservative" when they apply that ideology to their decisions.
You can call them that, if you believe that's what guides their decisions. But be careful about incorrectly inferring causality. If Ginsburg could actually read the Constitution and interpret it as if she could, would she be a hardline conservative?
Originally posted by Viss1:
In other words, in Davoland, judges who interpret the Constitution "correctly" are hardline conservatives, but I'm "dumb" for saying hardline conservatives match your interpretation of said Constitution.
Not what I'm saying. Can you read? I'm saying that the vast majority of people who interpret the Consitution correctly also happen to be what you may consider 'hardline conservatives'. You seem to think that their political ideology guides their decisions. If you believe that, then my side will consider it a compliment (oh, that's right, you're not a leftie, so that would be our side  ).
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 3,290
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 3,290 |
Originally posted by Davo:
You can call them that, if you believe that's what guides their decisions.
Cool, thanks for allowing me to make a judgement about a judge's ideology based on his record again. I was starting to wonder how else to do it.
Originally posted by Davo:
But be careful about incorrectly inferring causality. If Ginsburg could actually read the Constitution and interpret it as if she could, would she be a hardline conservative?
Since many of Ginsberg's decisions have been leftist, she must not agree with you that conservative decisions = correct decisions. 
Originally posted by Viss1:
In other words, in Davoland, judges who interpret the Constitution "correctly" are hardline conservatives, but I'm "dumb" for saying hardline conservatives match your interpretation of said Constitution.
Originally posted by Davo:
I'm saying that the vast majority of people who interpret the Consitution correctly also happen to be what you may consider 'hardline conservatives'.
Thanks for supporting everything I just said.
Originally posted by Davo:
(oh, that's right, you're not a leftie, so that would be our side ).
Newsflash - the political spectrum isn't comprised of only 2 individual and opposing groups. Can't believe you still refuse to understand that.
E0 #36
'95 Ranger
'82 Honda CX500
|
|
|
|
|
