"the bush crew is demonstrating that they have no problem with manipulating and changing the constitution to fit their agenda"
One of the most important checks and balances in the Constitutiion, separation of powers, assures the Executive cannot unilaterally change the constitution. The USSC, by interpreting the Constitution, can change the effect of it however.
Wouldnt the appointment of a new SC judge (after Rhenquist is lost, for example) be the ultimate litmus test on whether Bush wants to be a uniter or a partisan mobiliser?
He's not going to appoint a liberal judge, obviously. But either he'll appoint a centrist judge, to join the 1 or 2 who now sometimes flip this way, sometimes that; or he'll join a judge who'll be voting as consistently conservative down the line as Rehnquist himself or Clarence Thomas.
Since Bush himself has said that when he thinks of who would be good, he's thinking of someone like Thomas, I'm not holding my breath.
Given the reasoning here, the constituion should be abandoned because it delares that the USSC intrepret the constituion. seems kinda harsh to me but oh well.
"logic"? I try to avoid that when chatting with you. everyone gets confused.
Dys: Sit! Stay! It's too early to make me laugh so hard.
Larry434 wrote:nimh wrote:Wouldnt the appointment of a new SC judge (after Rhenquist is lost, for example) be the ultimate litmus test on whether Bush wants to be a uniter or a partisan mobiliser?
He's not going to appoint a liberal judge, obviously. But either he'll appoint a centrist judge, to join the 1 or 2 who now sometimes flip this way, sometimes that; or he'll join a judge who'll be voting as consistently conservative down the line as Rehnquist himself or Clarence Thomas.
Since Bush himself has said that when he thinks of who would be good, he's thinking of someone like Thomas, I'm not holding my breath.
With a 55-45 Senate and a probable change in the Senate rules to preclude the use of the filibuster to obstruct a vote, up or down, on a judicial nominee sent to the floor for a vote, Bush can successfully appoint more conservative USSC justices than he would have been able to do in his first term.
If Scalia were to be nominated for Chief Justice, look for the fight to be nothing less than ferocious.
Larry, we are trying to figure out just how a conservative like you can even think that the USSC will interpret the Constitution. The very idea is anathema to strict constructionists like Scalia and his faithful companion Thomas.
They insist, for example, that there is no Constitutional right to privacy and if they had a few more votes and the right case they would overturn not only Roe vs. Wade but also remove several of the present restrictions on search and seizures instituted by the Warren Court.
There's more but I have to go watch 60 Minutes for my weekly indoctrination in the ways of liberalism.
JOE
Larry, we are trying to figure out just how a conservative like you can even think that the USSC will interpret the Constitution. The very idea is anathema to strict constructionists like Scalia and his faithful companion Thomas.
They insist, for example, that there is no Constitutional right to privacy
Which is an interpretation, right joe?
No. It isn't. It's a strict reading of the document. The words private, privacry, right to privacy do not appear in the Constitution and to Judges like Scalia that means no right to privacy. Conservatives, I thought you knew, want the least amount of power vested in the Federal Government and any powers not designated by the Constitution to the Federal Government devolve to the States.
None of which would withstand his perusal given a chance.
