tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25646979.post3083141640475262528..comments2024-01-01T15:35:12.954-07:00Comments on Simple Utah Mormon Politics: Sonia Sotomayor: Just What is an Activist Judge Anyway?Frank Stahelihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01822334061980912687noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25646979.post-64098776066590546342009-06-04T09:15:09.404-06:002009-06-04T09:15:09.404-06:00The Bush/Gore recount fiasco was a lose-lose situa...The Bush/Gore recount fiasco was a lose-lose situation. I sometimes think that RMWarnick and others were just angry because Bush won. It wouldn't have been any better had the other dolt won, either. Under the circumstances, the state of Florida broke its own laws, and the Supreme Court called them on it. Regardless of which horse one was betting on in the 2000 presidential race, the Supreme Court made the right decision.Frank Stahelihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01822334061980912687noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25646979.post-46362801782061120592009-06-02T15:56:02.611-06:002009-06-02T15:56:02.611-06:00RMWarnick demonstrates exactly what is wrong with ...RMWarnick demonstrates exactly what is wrong with the "Living Constitution" approach to the Constitution. Under Bush v. Gore, Bush pointed out that there was no standard by which all ballots were being judged as to how they should be counted. In some districts, election judges saw a "dimpled chad" as evidence of the "voter's intent." Other judges in a different county rejected it as an invalid vote.<br /><br />This complete lack of standards left the remaining count open to myriad problems leaving the results of the "recount" in the hands of a few unelected election judges.<br /><br />I understand your frustration with the Bush v. Gore decision. It comes across as problematic and as though there were some fixing of the election by the "conservative" justices. However, I would think that you would be more concerned with the four justices who wanted to allow such a obviously flawed recounting process to continue.<br /><br />The same goes for any interpretation of the Constitution. Are we looking for a consistent interpretation that relies on the language that was written? Or, are we going to deal with a fluid "standard" that bends and moves depending on the backstory of the parties in front of the Court?<br /><br />The Constitution was set out to create a government. The Founding Fathers were very wary of government and therefore started with the principle that a government only possessed those powers given to it by the people. Our Constitution should always be viewed in this light. Any nominee to the Supreme Court who feels otherwise is unqualified to sit on the bench.Micah Brunerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13631927326526721319noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25646979.post-64259410018025174532009-05-31T09:32:33.496-06:002009-05-31T09:32:33.496-06:00As Frank knows, Justice Clarence Thomas rejects st...As Frank knows, Justice Clarence Thomas rejects <I>stare decisis</I>, and voted to put the loser of the 2000 presidential election in the White House.<br /><br />That would be my definition of an "activist."<br /><br />Judge Sotomayor is probably the most conservative pick President Obama could have gotten away with. <br /><br />Sotomayor's views on the unconstitutional expansion of presidential power are unknown. If she takes a different position than Justice Souter, it would tip the balance of the court toward dictatorship.rmwarnickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10948594032787232166noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25646979.post-50218981381282129072009-05-31T00:02:21.291-06:002009-05-31T00:02:21.291-06:00I'm pretty open to any appointment to the Supreme ...I'm pretty open to any appointment to the Supreme Court. Different people have different views on how the Constitution and statute should be interpreted. It's not that their necessarily trying to be activists, they honestly think that things should be interpreted more broadly than others like, say, Scalia does.<br /><br />I don't believe in the "Living Constitution" theory of interpretation that Breyer and other justices subscribe to (and maybe Sotomayor), but I think it's reasonable that they believe that theory just like I don't agree with "New Liberalism" but can see how people might think it's a good idea. <br /><br />After being in D.C. for both the Roberts and Alito hearings and seeing the Democrats go crazy over very qualified candidates, I think that the Republicans should confirm Sotomayor without hesitation unless they find out something really troubling about her. I don't think one pretty ambiguous quote about "making policy" qualifies for that.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25646979.post-61813674625779959692009-05-29T23:48:31.000-06:002009-05-29T23:48:31.000-06:00I think classical liberals could support some acti...I think classical liberals could support some activism from judges to protect against the encroachment upon our individual liberties by tyrannical majorities.<br /><br />(Although allowing the government to be the arbiter in its own cases and controversies is somewhat akin to a lady's stationing of the key to her chastity belt on the bedpost while her lord goes off to war ... not much protection there.)<br /><br />Sotomayor's record shows that she's too deferential to the exercise of power for my taste. Sadly, her past as a prosecutor will only further endear her to conservatives.<br /><br />I recommend the <A HREF="http://www.cato.org/pubs/articles/scalia_v_epstein.pdf" REL="nofollow">debate between Antonin Scalia and Richard Epstein on judicial activism</A>, as well as Roger Pilon's classic essay "Reclaiming the Constitution."Reclaiming the Constitutionhttp://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3476noreply@blogger.com