Send As SMS

Saturday, November 13, 2004

A Conservative Court?

I have never been one to get to hyper about the claims that somehow a GOP win means that all of our rights will be taken away.

A New York Times article makes a point that I think disproves the so-called litmas test.

In the last 36 years, four Republican presidents have appointed all but two of the current nine justices.
But on the most contested social issues - abortion, affirmative action, school prayer and gay rights - the court has sided with liberals, while only modestly advancing the deregulatory agenda of the Republicans.
"If the goal of Republican presidents was to build a court that exercised its own power with greater restraint or adhered strictly to the original constitutional text, then they have clearly failed," said Thomas Keck, a political science professor at Syracuse University and author of "The Most Activist Supreme Court in History."

However, one can't help but wonder what type of judges Bush will appoint, and he will get at least one or two of them. One thing I learned in Poli Sci at college is that many Presidents have been disappointed by the picks they've made because some judges tend to have a mind of their own once they get on the Bench.

Here's the full article

2 Comments:

At 9:24 AM, Kevin said...

Look, GOPers like Bush only pay lip service to wanting "strict constructionist" judges. The fact of the matter is that they aren't interested in a strict adherence to the original constitutional text. If they were to pack the USSC with judges who would overturn anything that isn't in strict adherence to the original Constitution, they'd be cutting off their own cash cow - corporations with the rights of individuals.

The dirty little secret of the USSC is that they have never ruled that corporations have any of the rights of an individual. True "strict constructionists" would quickly do away with the contrived rights that have been granted to corporations visa vis freedom of speech... which really has been interpreted as freedom to donate $$$ to politicians and political causes.

 
At 11:29 PM, Donald said...

Hey Kevin, Just a thought.

Wouldn't advertising be covered under free speech?? Not too sure because I know they can ban tobacco ads.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home