One would hope that people are not appointed based on which party they are members of and rather if they use the Constitution and documents like the Declaration of Independance to base their decisions.
I love this business of acting like partisanship is a bad thing or saying, "I vote for the person, not the party." The fact is, the party tells you a lot about a person.
It's perfectly reasonable for Mr. C to say, "I would never vote for a Republican." Frankly, when Mr. C votes for a democrat it is probably out of pragmatism more than identifying with the the Democratic party, because he is probably way left of mainstream Democrats but voting for a third party is counterproductive. When Mr. C votes for a democrat he is usually voting for someone more conservative than he is, but less conservative, of course, than the Republican who is running. It's going to be that way 9999 times out of 10000. For Mr. C to vote for a Republican it would pretty much have to mean that the Democrat on the ticket was more conservative than the Republican, otherwise the Republican would do a poorer job representing his views. That's the way it is for me anyway. I am far more liberal than almost any Democratic candidate. It's a virtual impossibility that the political values of the Republican running are going to be closer to my own values than those of the Democrat. The Republican and Democrat parties aren't just fraternaties.
Long story short, every Supreme Court justice usees the Constitution and other relevant documents to influence their decisions, but there are multiple ways to interpret the Constitution that are perfectly reasonable. The whole thing is like 8000 words. You can read it from beginning to end in under an hour, easy. It's filled with vagueries -- deliberately. It's crazy to suggest that President Bush should appoint someone to the Supreme Court who doesn't believe that the Constitution should be interpreted the way
he believes that it should be. He is a very conservative Republican, which says a lot about how he believes the Constitution should be interpreted. As dumb as I think the guy is, he would have to be a complete moron (much moreso, I mean) to deliberately nominate a liberal to the Court. If he doesn't believe in a constitutional right to privacy, or limitations on the 2nd Amendment, or affirmative action, or wide 4th Amendment application, etc., why in God's name would or should he put someone on the court that would steer the nation towards all of those things?
Home
Help
Search
Login
Register
Send this topic
Print
Topic: Bush's supreme court nominees (Read 10101 times)
