Bush to announce new supreme court justice

[quote name='mykevermin']Considering that the last few debatable posts were nothing more remarkable than our respective opinions, then I don't think I'd be alone in this trend, Mr. Pot.[/QUOTE]

On that point, Mr. Kettle, I will have to disagree (or is it "Professor Murder"?).

I presented a reasoned argument that Judge Roberts is qualifed.

You did not present a reasoned argument that he is unqualified.
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']Just wait, as soon as Rehnquist kicks it, I'll be nominated for Chief Justice. You heard it hear first.[/QUOTE]

Wait, is Janice Rogers Brown a member of the CAG forums? Who would have thunk it...
 
[quote name='sgs89']On that point, Mr. Kettle, I will have to disagree (or is it "Professor Murder"?).

I presented a reasoned argument that Judge Roberts is qualifed.

You did not present a reasoned argument that he is unqualified.[/QUOTE]

Evidently, you didn't read what I had to say. I can live with that.

One thing I can't live with is being on this damn board all night, though.
 
[quote name='sgs89']Wait, is Janice Rogers Brown a member of the CAG forums? Who would have thunk it...[/QUOTE]


Nah, she's a decoy.
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']Nah, she's a decoy.[/QUOTE]

What, exactly, are your qualifications for said appointment?
 
Roberts Worked on Behalf of Gay Activists
By Richard A. Serrano, Times Staff Writer


WASHINGTON -- Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts Jr. worked behind the scenes for a coalition of gay-rights activists, and his legal expertise helped them convince the Supreme Court to issue a landmark 1996 ruling protecting people against discrimination because of their sexual orientation.

Then a lawyer specializing in appellate work, the conservative Roberts helped represent the gay activists as part of his law firm's pro bono work. While he did not write the legal briefs or argue the case before the Supreme court, he was instrumental in reviewing the filings and preparing oral arguments, according to several lawyers intimately involved in the case.

The coalition won its case, 6-3, in what gay activists described at the time as the movement's most important legal victory. The three dissenting justices were those to whom Roberts is frequently likened for their conservative ideology -- Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

Roberts' role working on behalf of gay activists, whose cause is anathema to many conservatives, appears to illustrate his allegiance to the credo of the legal profession: to zealously represent the interests of the client, whoever it might be.

There is no other record of Roberts being involved in gay-rights cases that would suggest his position on such issues. He has stressed, however, that a client's views are not necessarily shared by the lawyer who argues on his or her behalf....

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationw...,1823941.story?coll=la-home-headlines#Scene_1

Wonder how this will play out with the religious right.
 
It really goes to my point, which is despite all of the folks ready to attack Judge Roberts, we don't really know that much about his politics. What we DO know is that he is quite qualified, very skilled, and should be confirmed with minimal bickering.
 
Who the fuck is that group? The REAL liberal media wouldn't give those fuckin' assholes the time of day. It's like having a news piece about the local old assholes that sit on a porch and reminisce about the good ol' days when you could drink and drive, or kick a $$$$$$ when you wanted to, withdraw support from a Republican. I withdrew support for a lot of thing a lot of times, and nobody but me gives a shit. Why do these hecneyed hee-haws deserve any coverage?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Who the fuck is that group? The REAL liberal media wouldn't give those fuckin' assholes the time of day. It's like having a news piece about the local old assholes that sit on a porch and reminisce about the good ol' days when you could drink and drive, or kick a $$$$$$ when you wanted to, withdraw support from a Republican. I withdrew support for a lot of thing a lot of times, and nobody but me gives a shit. Why do these hecneyed hee-haws deserve any coverage?[/QUOTE]

I agree with you.

This group is engaging in the same fallacy as those on the left who seek to crucify Judge Roberts for positions he advocated FOR HIS CLIENT during his time in the Reagan administration. I mean, it is beyond me why people cannot understand that, as a lawyer, you take positions ALL THE TIME that are not necessarily consistent with your own personal views.

The simple truth remains: Judge Roberts is the right man for the job. On that, we can agree.
 
[quote name='sgs89']The simple truth remains: Judge Roberts is the right man for the job. On that, we can agree.[/QUOTE]
We can? Last I heard he had little-to-no judicial experience, and this is a lifetime judicial position on the highest court in the land. Doesn't seem very qualified to me, and we shouldn't just "shoo him in" for a lifetime position. HEAVEN FORBID we actually discuss things in this country.
 
[quote name='evilmax17']We can? Last I heard he had little-to-no judicial experience, and this is a lifetime judicial position on the highest court in the land. Doesn't seem very qualified to me, and we shouldn't just "shoo him in" for a lifetime position. HEAVEN FORBID we actually discuss things in this country.[/QUOTE]

Please see the discussion earlier in this thread (particularly my posts). Judge Roberts is VERY qualified and no serious observer questions that.

As I pointed out to others, the majority of Supreme Court justices throughout history have not even been judges prior to their appointment (one recent example is Chief Justice Rehnquist).

That being said, Judge Roberts has served admirably on what is widely regarded as the second most prestigious court in the land (the DC Circuit), was known as the most effective Supreme Court advocate of the last two decades (arguing nearly 40 cases before the SCOTUS), and is uniformly recognized as being very smart and thoughtful.
 
story.gif


story.gif
 
[quote name='sgs89']Please see the discussion earlier in this thread (particularly my posts). Judge Roberts is VERY qualified and no serious observer questions that.

As I pointed out to others, the majority of Supreme Court justices throughout history have not even been judges prior to their appointment (one recent example is Chief Justice Rehnquist).

That being said, Judge Roberts has served admirably on what is widely regarded as the second most prestigious court in the land (the DC Circuit), was known as the most effective Supreme Court advocate of the last two decades (arguing nearly 40 cases before the SCOTUS), and is uniformly recognized as being very smart and thoughtful.[/QUOTE]

I can't argue that (though I would like more examples, other than Rehnquist, of those with no judicial experience).

NONE OF THIS, however, disqualifies Roberts from a good prolonged round of question and answer. If he is going to be as good a judge as he was a lawyer, there shouldn't be any problems, right? Some right-wing pundits are outraged that Joe Biden (or Dick Durbin, or someone not named Hillary who is jockeying for a 2008 position) wants to ask Roberts what his judicial approach would be if presented with a clear judicial ruling that would go against his religious belief system. Personally, I'd love to know how Roberts would answer that question. If he's willing to take up a supreme court position, he had better be willing and able, loud and proud, to embrace the constitution as the be-all, end-all of American politics. Including (and *especially*) when it is contrary to your personal faith and/or belief system.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I can't argue that (though I would like more examples, other than Rehnquist, of those with no judicial experience).

NONE OF THIS, however, disqualifies Roberts from a good prolonged round of question and answer. If he is going to be as good a judge as he was a lawyer, there shouldn't be any problems, right? Some right-wing pundits are outraged that Joe Biden (or Dick Durbin, or someone not named Hillary who is jockeying for a 2008 position) wants to ask Roberts what his judicial approach would be if presented with a clear judicial ruling that would go against his religious belief system. Personally, I'd love to know how Roberts would answer that question. If he's willing to take up a supreme court position, he had better be willing and able, loud and proud, to embrace the constitution as the be-all, end-all of American politics. Including (and *especially*) when it is contrary to your personal faith and/or belief system.[/QUOTE]

I don't disagree with you. I don't think, however, that he should be expected to answer questions about how he would rule in particular cases, such as an abortion case.

And remember, the Constitution is open to many schools of interpretation, so the fact that he might interpret the Constitution in a way that does not necessarily accord with your interpretation does not mean he is not "qualified" to serve on the SCOTUS.
 
As for some other examples of modern-day Justices who were not judges upon being nominated: Justice Lewis Powell, Jr. (1972-1987), Abe Fortas (1965-1969), and Byron White (1962-1993) to name but a few.
 
[quote name='sgs89']And remember, the Constitution is open to many schools of interpretation, so the fact that he might interpret the Constitution in a way that does not necessarily accord with your interpretation does not mean he is not "qualified" to serve on the SCOTUS.[/QUOTE]

No shit?
 
Thanks for the insightful analysis, Professor Murder.

We now return to the regularly scheduled broadcast.
 
I see that you are not commenting on my listing of three additional recent SCOTUS Justices who did not serve as judges prior to appointment. I guess you have conceded the point that Judge Roberts is qualified.
 
[quote name='sgs89']I see that you are not commenting on my listing of three additional recent SCOTUS Justices who did not serve as judges prior to appointment. I guess you have conceded the point that Judge Roberts is qualified.[/QUOTE]

What kind of logic did you study? I will concede that he has decent credentials, but the need for rigorous questioning of Roberts would make any concession of his qualifications hastened.

I appreciate your data mining; one example alone (e.g., Rehnquist) is merely an anecdote. If you wanted to make your point that no judicial experience is more common than one person, then it was your obligation to prove it. You did that, and I say thank you. That's my only reaction to that.

If you want to get pissy because I take offense to your condescending grade school level government lecture (the constitution can be interpreted various ways), then go ahead and be snippy. But also be aware that, with few exceptions, those who frequent the versus forums have some semblance of knowledge about how our government works.
 
"Some semblance" is about right.

I never argued that he should not be questioned. Of course he should. What I took issue with was your conclusion that he was not qualified. To your credit, you appear to have retreated from that ill-informed position.

And I do think you are confused about the various ways in which the Constitution can be interpreted and how that impacts whether someone is qualified to serve on the Court. Your hostility to my comments betrays your defensiveness about this issue.
 
[quote name='sgs89']I see that you are not commenting on my listing of three additional recent SCOTUS Justices who did not serve as judges prior to appointment. I guess you have conceded the point that Judge Roberts is qualified.[/QUOTE]

Current nominations are treated very differently. Yes, people used to be appointed with minimal judicial qualifications, but that is not the case anymore. Just like many other things, the appointment process has changed in more recent times, judicial experience is expected now. If someone without judicial qualifications had been appointed in later decades it would have been much more of an issue.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']Current nominations are treated very differently. Yes, people used to be appointed with minimal judicial qualifications, but that is not the case anymore. Just like many other things, the appointment process has changed in more recent times, judicial experience is expected now.[/QUOTE]

Well, Rehnquist had no judicial experience. Neither did Justice White. These are two of the last 11 or so Justices.

The importance of judicial experience comes and goes. I predict that in the next decade at least one Justice will be appointed (and confirmed) who has no judicial experience.
 
[quote name='sgs89']"Some semblance" is about right.

I never argued that he should not be questioned. Of course he should. What I took issue with was your conclusion that he was not qualified. To your credit, you appear to have retreated from that ill-informed position.

And I do think you are confused about the various ways in which the Constitution can be interpreted and how that impacts whether someone is qualified to serve on the Court. Your hostility to my comments betrays your defensiveness about this issue.[/QUOTE]

My hostility is hostility to patronization. If I gave you step by step instructions on how to go potty all by yourself, I imagine you'd be incredulous at my assumption that you lack that knowledge.

I'm interested in how you think I'm confused about the constitution's possible interpretations. Please elaborate.
 
[quote name='sgs89']Well, Rehnquist had no judicial experience. Neither did Justice White. These are two of the last 11 or so Justices.

The importance of judicial experience comes and goes. I predict that in the next decade at least one Justice will be appointed (and confirmed) who has no judicial experience.[/QUOTE]

But a lot has changed, try getting a justice appointed to the supreme court in the 80's till today and you wont get very far. It was often treated as a reward for what you've done, now it is more about your qualifications. A lot has changed since 1972, in political terms that isn't recent history.

edit: I just saw this old poll which highlights the stupidity of americans, and since we're talking about judges I thought it fit:

In a 1989 survey, Americans were asked, among other "general knowledge" questions, to name the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Nine percent correctly named William Rehnquist; 54% named Judge Wapner.
Click to expand...

http://www.nndb.com/people/984/000022918/
 
[quote name='mykevermin']

I'm interested in how you think I'm confused about the constitution's possible interpretations. Please elaborate.[/QUOTE]

Well, why don't you explain what you believe to be the relevant schools of constitutional interpretation and then expound on whether adherents to those specific schools should be disallowed from serving on the SCOTUS? And feel free to pepper your analysis with specific cases to exemplify each of the schools of interpretation.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']But a lot has changed, try getting a justice appointed to the supreme court in the 80's till today and you wont get very far. It was often treated as a reward for what you've done, now it is more about your qualifications. A lot has changed since 1972, in political terms that isn't recent history.

[/QUOTE]

I think you are putting too much emphasis on the last several SCOTUS nominees. Indeed, it was widely rumored that GWB was considering candidates from outside the judiciary for the slot that went to Judge Roberts. Some senators and the Attorney General were all under consideration.
 
[quote name='sgs89']I think you are putting too much emphasis on the last several SCOTUS nominees. Indeed, it was widely rumored that GWB was considering candidates from outside the judiciary for the slot that went to Judge Roberts. Some senators and the Attorney General were all under consideration.[/QUOTE]

Considering doesn't mean he realistically would, besides with all the political pressure and coverage put on court nominees, appointing a justice who had no history as a judge would have been politically foolish and would face much stiffer competition.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']Considering doesn't mean he realistically would, besides with all the political pressure and coverage put on court nominees, appointing a justice who had no history as a judge would have been politically foolish and would face much stiffer competition.[/QUOTE]
In all fairness, that wouldn't have been the first time Bush has done something foolish.
 
[quote name='sgs89']Well, why don't you explain what you believe to be the relevant schools of constitutional interpretation and then expound on whether adherents to those specific schools should be disallowed from serving on the SCOTUS? And feel free to pepper your analysis with specific cases to exemplify each of the schools of interpretation.[/QUOTE]

I'll let you do the work, mr. legal jargon pants. You made the accusation, now make the proof.

This isn't Fox News. You don't get to make accusations and follow up by demanding I defend myself. Ball's in your court, slappy.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']But a lot has changed, try getting a justice appointed to the supreme court in the 80's till today and you wont get very far. It was often treated as a reward for what you've done, now it is more about your qualifications. [/QUOTE]
Yeah, because we all know Roberts definitely has never done anything for the Bush camp.
 
[quote name='Drocket']Yeah, because we all know Roberts definitely has never done anything for the Bush camp.[/QUOTE]

Eh, that's not what I meant. He has a history of speaking before the supreme court and he has had some history as a judge, though short.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I'll let you do the work, mr. legal jargon pants. You made the accusation, now make the proof.

This isn't Fox News. You don't get to make accusations and follow up by demanding I defend myself. Ball's in your court, slappy.[/QUOTE]

I have neither the desire nor the time to do so.

I think your level of understanding about the judiciary and the SCOTUS confirmation process is perfectly clear by a review of your posts in this thread.

I am not surprised that you are unwilling to get into a debate about legal theory.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']Considering doesn't mean he realistically would, besides with all the political pressure and coverage put on court nominees, appointing a justice who had no history as a judge would have been politically foolish and would face much stiffer competition.[/QUOTE]

I cannot agree with that. I don't think judicial experience would have been the determining factor.
 
[quote name='sgs89']I have neither the desire nor the time to do so.

I think your level of understanding about the judiciary and the SCOTUS confirmation process is perfectly clear by a review of your posts in this thread.

I am not surprised that you are unwilling to get into a debate about legal theory.[/QUOTE]

I'm not unwilling; I asked you to clarify a point, and you're merely dodging the issue of clarifying your assertions.

I'm not going to admit that I'm knoweldgable of legal theory; this does not mean, however, that I can't argue it. I don't know much about economic theory other than the general basis is in rational choice theory. RCT is a tautological piece of shit in my opinion, so I feel qualified in debating what an economist might have to say, even if my area of expertise is in sociology.

I'll repeat myself. Slowly, as to allow you to dodge the matter yet again.

You.
Made.
The.
Accusation.
Please.
Elaborate.
It.
Is.
Your.
Argument.
To.
Prove.
Not.
Mine.
To.
Defend.

comprende?
 
Really now, sgs, did you come from the Sean Hannity school of debate? It's a rhetorical question, of course, and since I'm coming across as more "foaming at the mouth" than you, the answer is probably "no."

Here's my contention: You made a claim that I was confused about the fact of constitutional interpreation. I asked you to elaborate on it, and you have (1) refused to do so and (2) chide me for my "unwillingness" to debate, all the while you're so busy at life that you have no time to present a cogent argument, yet can respond to every post in this fucking thread (AND reread my prior posts)?

Someone famous once said "bitch, PLEASE!"

Why don't I ask you about your inability to discern criminological theories without telling you what any of them are, and then accuse you of intentionally stifling the debate? Would that make me as cool as you?
 
OK, let me put it this way:

One school of thought, associated most closely with Justice Scalia, is that the Constitution should be strictly construed with the original intent of the Framers in mind. Therefore, on the abortion issue, adherents of this school would ask themselves, "where in the Constitution does it say that the federal government (or states, assuming incorporation) cannot proscribe abortion?" The answer: no where. Therefore, the Constitution, which is a limitation on federal (and, after the doctrine of incorporation, state) power, does not prohibit the legislature from criminalizing abortion. Of course, do not forget that the Ninth Amendment states "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Another school of thought, currently most closely associated with Justice Stevens or perhaps Justice Ginsburg, holds that the Constitution is a living, breathing document that must be interpreted in the context of the times. In addition, the Constitution protects a "penumbra" of unspecified rights beyond those specifically protected in the Bill of Rights. Therefore, on the abortion question, adherents of this school of thought would argue that the Constitution includes an implicit right of privacy (even though not specifically articulated) that protects a woman's right to do with her body (and fetus) as she sees fit. Therefore, the Consitution prohibits Congress (and states) from criminalizing abortion.

Now that you understand these different schools of thought (and there are others, to be sure), my question is whether you would deem an adherent of one or the other inappropriate for inclusion on the SCOTUS because you believed that they would decide issues in a way that you thought was inappropriate. In other words, isn't it inappropriate to condemn nominees because, for example, they would not uphold Roe v. Wade (or at least the jurisprudential underpinnings of that decision), even though they have a principled basis for disagreeing with the decision?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Really now, sgs, did you come from the Sean Hannity school of debate? It's a rhetorical question, of course, and since I'm coming across as more "foaming at the mouth" than you, the answer is probably "no."

Here's my contention: You made a claim that I was confused about the fact of constitutional interpreation. I asked you to elaborate on it, and you have (1) refused to do so and (2) chide me for my "unwillingness" to debate, all the while you're so busy at life that you have no time to present a cogent argument, yet can respond to every post in this fucking thread (AND reread my prior posts)?

Someone famous once said "bitch, PLEASE!"

Why don't I ask you about your inability to discern criminological theories without telling you what any of them are, and then accuse you of intentionally stifling the debate? Would that make me as cool as you?[/QUOTE]

You spoke too soon, Professor Murder.
 
[quote name='sgs89']You spoke too soon, Professor Murder.[/QUOTE]

If, by "spoke too soon" you mean "pissed and moaned to get you to say something substantive," then I agree with you.

I don't know if their are comparable terms for constitution literalists as there are bible literalist ("essentialists," not to be confused with "fundamentalists"), but the concept of debating the constitution as a literalist document versus a constructionist document isn't that hard to posit.

I know where I stand ideologically, but that means squat in legal circles (not the least of reasons being my exclusion from those circles ;)).

If you'll allow me to usurp the phrases "literalist" and "constructionist" to delineate what seem to be the extremes, then it's merely a matter of framing the argument (a highly complicated matter, to be sure). If Roberts can stay within the framework of these legal perspectives, then if his positions differ from mine, so be it. That's the way democracy is sometimes.

On the other hand, it is important that we understand his regard for the constitution and the ideals of a democracy, and how he would prioritize them in his work obligation as opposed to his faith. This, to me, is a crucial matter, even if it boils down to "can you make your arguments appear to have a legal theory foundation, rather than a religious or otherwise undemocratic partisan base?" Can Roberts do that? He's come this far, hasn't he?

***If you'd rather not read the long version*** I imagine that I don't have a problem with Roberts if he can keep his arguments and perspectives in a legal framework. I have little doubt that he can do that, but I think a severe round of questioning is in order before a decision can be made. In the meantime, approaching a Bush nominee with a healthy deal of skepticism is something that, in my opinion, should be dutifully observed for a myriad of reasons, John Bolton being the most recent example.

I simply want to know more about Roberts. I will say it again: he has the credentials, but I do not know yet if he is qualified. I rescind what I said earlier about his tiny judicial experience. You made a good case that it may not be important. This alone does not qualify him, and I will reserve any further (not counting previous :)) judgment for after hearings.

The Republicans want to grill him now, too, since he evidently did work for Playboy in addition to his pro bono work for the queers.

Thanks for finally elaborating that; it's not rocket science, but it isn't precisely intuitive, either. Now I'm off to go find a good strategy RPG to chew on.
 
[quote name='sgs89']One school of thought, associated most closely with Justice Scalia, is that the Constitution should be strictly construed with the original intent of the Framers in mind. Therefore, on the abortion issue, adherents of this school would ask themselves, "where in the Constitution does it say that the federal government (or states, assuming incorporation) cannot proscribe abortion?" The answer: no where. Therefore, the Constitution, which is a limitation on federal (and, after the doctrine of incorporation, state) power, does not prohibit the legislature from criminalizing abortion. Of course, do not forget that the Ninth Amendment states "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." [/QUOTE]

I've definitely heard this argument from a number of people, and all I can say is that its probably the single stupidest interpretation of the Constitution I can imagine, especially when it comes from a "conservative". When you look at the original intent of the framers, its pretty damn clear what they meant: "Here's what the Federal government can do - keep your fucking hands off everything else."

Liberals at least violate the intent with the good intention of helping people (and they usually don't subscribe to this interpretation of the Constitution anyway.) For Conservatives to claim they believe this interpretation of the Constitution, then try to parlay it into anti-abortion laws (or 99% of the other stuff Conservatives want to do) is absolutely ridiculous and requires stunning amounts of logic gymnastics.
 
mykevermin,

Thanks for the substantive discussion.

I agree with you that Judge Roberts should be questioned. I think he will come across as the erudite and passionate scholar that he is.

I look forward to more debate as the process continues.
 
[quote name='Drocket']I've definitely heard this argument from a number of people, and all I can say is that its probably the single stupidest interpretation of the Constitution I can imagine, especially when it comes from a "conservative". When you look at the original intent of the framers, its pretty damn clear what they meant: "Here's what the Federal government can do - keep your fucking hands off everything else."

Liberals at least violate the intent with the good intention of helping people (and they usually don't subscribe to this interpretation of the Constitution anyway.) For Conservatives to claim they believe this interpretation of the Constitution, then try to parlay it into anti-abortion laws (or 99% of the other stuff Conservatives want to do) is absolutely ridiculous and requires stunning amounts of logic gymnastics.[/QUOTE]

I think you're misunderstanding. Allowing abortion to be outlawed IS "keeping your fucking hands off everything else." The argument he presented was simply that the Constitution didn't prevent abortion from being outlawed, not that it outlaws it.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']I think you're misunderstanding. Allowing abortion to be outlawed IS "keeping your fucking hands off everything else." The argument he presented was simply that the Constitution didn't prevent abortion from being outlawed, not that it outlaws it.[/QUOTE]

Yes, it DOES prevent abortion from being outlawed (at the federal level, at least) because it doesn't grant that power to the federal government. The Constitution is quite clear that the Federal government only has the powers specifically granted to it in the Constitution. Abortion isn't mentioned anywhere, and doesn't fall under any other category that the federal government is given power over, therefore the federal government doesn't have the power to regulate it in any way, shape, or form. Period. End of story.

The reality is that this interpretation stopped being relevant to reality during the Civil War. There are very few people who actually honestly support Strict Constitutionalism anymore - 99% of people who claim to be Strict Constitutionalist are just intellectually lazy and simply use it as a vague justification for whatever it is that they want to do.
 
[quote name='Drocket']Yes, it DOES prevent abortion from being outlawed (at the federal level, at least) because it doesn't grant that power to the federal government. The Constitution is quite clear that the Federal government only has the powers specifically granted to it in the Constitution. Abortion isn't mentioned anywhere, and doesn't fall under any other category that the federal government is given power over, therefore the federal government doesn't have the power to regulate it in any way, shape, or form. Period. End of story.

The reality is that this interpretation stopped being relevant to reality during the Civil War. There are very few people who actually honestly support Strict Constitutionalism anymore - 99% of people who claim to be Strict Constitutionalist are just intellectually lazy and simply use it as a vague justification for whatever it is that they want to do.[/QUOTE]

But, as you point out, there is no such limitation on STATE power to regulate abortion (at least in the US Constitution). And, in fairness, most attempts at regulating abortion have been through state legislatures, not Congress. So, strict constructionists would say that the Framers nowhere evinced an intent to disallow states from criminalizing abortion.

Also, how about Article 1, section 8 of the US Constitution: provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States. Does providing for the "general Welfare of the United States" empower Congress to regulate abortion? How about the Commerce Clause?
 
The confirmation hearings are just a few weeks away, boys. Buckle your seatbelts, it should be fun.

My prediction: Roberts is confirmed easily.
 
[quote name='sgs89']The confirmation hearings are just a few weeks away, boys. Buckle your seatbelts, it should be fun.

My prediction: Roberts is confirmed easily.[/QUOTE]

I was just thinking, if the supreme court struck down roe vs wade AND ruled that gay marriage is a constitutional right, with roberts being the deciding vote in both cases, which side would kill him first?
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']I was just thinking, if the supreme court struck down roe vs wade AND ruled that gay marriage is a constitutional right, with roberts being the deciding vote in both cases, which side would kill him first?[/QUOTE]

It would be a dead heat. And would serve to confirm burgeoning rumors that Judge Roberts is gay. Yes, while I don't believe them, those rumors are making the rounds, based on his late marriage, adopted kids, many pictures with other men, etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top