Archive for the ·

Law

· Category...

Bush Picks Alito

no comments

I’m much happier this time around. I didn’t have much to say about the Harriet Miers nomination. I wasn’t thrilled with it, but I figured that Bush has a reason for choosing her. He must have trusted that her judicial views were properly constructionist, as opposed to activist. I don’t even hold her previous views against her, as I used to be one of those mindless drone Democrats, and I’d hate it if someone held my previous life’s views and actions against me forever. I’m different now, and she apparently is as well. She never really seemed to be an exciting choice, but neither was she worth putting up much opposition, either.
Now, though, Bush is nominating someone I can be excited about. The President is nominating 3rd Circuit Appeals Court Judge Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court. I really think he’ll approach the Constitution as a document with a specific meaning, as opposed to assigning it a meaning that would “feel good.” I’ve previously written on what I’d like to see out of a new SCOTUS justice. Alita may be one of the few people available, with qualifications, who comes close to this. Will he be as good as Scalia or Thomas? That’s hard to say, right now. I look forward to finding out.
One thing I don’t want, though, is anyone on the SCOTUS that Harry Reid would approve of.

We’re Never Getting a “Strict Constructionist” SCOTUS

1 comment

There has been a lot of talk, in the process of the latest Supreme Court nominations, of whether we need “strict constructionist” judges on the court. Count me as one who thinks we do. I do not, however, believe that we’re going to get the type of constructionists we need on the court. While I believe that we have two on the court right now that are superior to the rest, in Scalia and Thomas, even they have not proven to favor the constructionism that I’d prefer.
Some would like to paint constructionism as a code word for taking voting rights away from blacks and women. They’re just partisan hacks, in my opinion. Neither of these would be allowed under the current Constitution, and should not be. What we need is a Supreme Court that would look at the strict wording of the Constitution in the decisions they make from the bench.
What would this mean?
Freedom of Speech is an individual right. There should be no need to be a member of any press organization to enjoy freedom of speech. Likewise, political speech should receive the highest protection, whether performed by an individual or a group of individuals. Today’s interpretation of freedom of speech will allow one group to pool their resources and receive protections, while another group pooling their resources can be punished at will. The only difference is that the first group is called “the media” while the other is called a “political organization.” Freedom of speech was written into our Constitution primarily to protect political speech, yet political speech is the first to go. That’s wrong.
The requirement that the federal government not institute a state religion is not a requirement that religion be scoured from all government at all levels.
Freedom to peaceably assemble trumps laws covering peaceable assembly.
As the right to keep and bear arms was designed as an individual right to protect against an oppressive government, individuals should be able to own firearms of their choice, up to and including modern military weaponry.
The right against unreasonable search and seizure means that representatives of the government must have a valid reason to search you or your property. Just because your car is on a government road is not a good reason. That the policeman wants to make sure you don’t have a weapon that can be used against him is not a good reason. That you are the randomly chosen person or are in the randomly chosen vehicle is not a good reason. That you are suspected of committing a crime, and need to be searched pursuant to that search IS a good reason. This right does NOT constitute a right to privacy, whether I like it or not.
The federal government has no power over health care, drugs, or any medical procedure.
The federal government has no power over education. The education department, all education funding, and all education regulation should be abolished.
This isn’t all. There’s plenty more. I would say, however, that a judge who would properly interpret the US Constitution would do as well on the more as he or she would on the above. I’m not holding my breath.

Laughable Opposition to John Roberts

no comments

Move On has already jumped, calling John Roberts a “right wing idealogue.” NARAL the pro-abortion (NOT just pro-choice) group says ” there is little doubt that he will work to overturn Roe v. Wade.”
Over on Democrat Underground, “Raiden” says, “And if they don’t fight the good fight – I’ll never vote Dem again.” Don’t you know he thinks this sentence fragment makes him look smart?
Senator Kennedy says Roberts should be held to the O’Connor Standard, instead of the constitutional one. Basically, this means that Roberts should meet a standard, not of constitutional knowledge and adherence, but to an idealogical wishy-washiness that doesn’t let the electoral losers lose more ground.
At least Robert Byrd had some class, saying, “I thank President Bush for reaching out to Senators on both sides of the aisle as he worked to select a nominee for the Court. I hope that this bipartisan cooperation will continue as the confirmation process begins.”
The fun is just beginning. There’s nothing like a good judicial fight to make politics interesting again. This Karl Rove stuff just hasn’t been much fun, what with the Democrats trying so hard to make political hay. Only the moonbat and media wings of the Democratic Party have seemed to care, what with Rove not even being the subject of the investigation in the first place.

I Will Be Bush’s Supreme Court Nominee

no comments

Speculation abounds that there will be at least one vacancy created on the US Supreme Court next week. When that happens, Bush will nominate a replacement. Then, the fun begins.
My speculation for the replacement is that Bush will nominate ME for the US Supreme Court. Once he does so, the left will immediately start criticizing me as an extremist conservative whose judicial opinions are out of the mainstream. They’ll probably paint me as a racist. They’ll say I’ll work to abolish Roe -vs- Wade. Before a month passes, there will be at least three organizations formed to raise money and fight my nomination. Speeches will be given on the floor of the Senate to oppose me and my extremist tendencies. In general, all Hell will break loose among the Democrats. They might even try a filibuster, again.
Of course, the truth is that I won’t be the nominee. Mark my words, though. No matter who it is that Bush does nominate, the rest of what I say will come true. That’s because the Democrats have become a party defined by opposition to the Republicans. They’ll use the tactics I laid out above because they’re the standard tactics, and they haven’t added any new plays to their playbook in two decades.
It should be fun.

%d bloggers like this: