Maybe in the hysterical magical time travel VW bus that you and Geralding and Hirsted are riding in but for the rest of us who weren't alive in the 50's we're looking to the future. Maybe the Great Society will come back but it's unlikely since many of us associate the social engineering mindset with abject failure. But you and Ted K. can keep calling anyone who disagrees with you a reactionary bigot and make sure that you keep talking about abortion and Vietnam because as we can all see that's a sure winner and a great vision for the future.

If the Courts are going to try to discern "intent" rather than what the language of the law actually says, then why is it "outlandish" to consider the president's words alongside those of the Congress?

It's outlandish to give the president's intent the same weight as Congress's (which is what the editorial said) because it is Congress's sole power to shape the law, perhaps through negotiations within Congress. Considering the president's intent when interpreting the law might change what members of Congress thought they were agreeing to when they voted for it. This is
why the federal Line Item Veto Act of 1996 was found unconstitutional, for example.

After all, the final compromise bill hammered together by the conference committee often differs rather substantially from those initially voted upon.

Why is that relevant? The compromise bill goes back to Congress for another vote.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/AmericanFoundingandHistory/wm800.cfm

Advice and Consent: What the Constitution Says
by John McGinnis
July 19, 2005

Editor's Note: ... This essay is part of The Heritage Guide to the Constitution (forthcoming), a line-by-line analysis of the original meaning of each clause of the United States Constitution, edited by David Forte and Matthew Spalding.

...

The Senate has independent authority in that it may constitutionally refuse to confirm a nominee for any reason. While ideology and jurisprudential "point of view" were not among the kinds of concerns listed by the Framers as justifying the requirement of advice and consent, nothing in the text of the clause appears to limit the kind of considerations the Senate can take up. It is thus reasonable to infer that the Framers located the process of advice and consent in the Senate as a check to prevent the President from appointing people who have unsound principles as well as blemished characters. As the President has complete discretion in the use of his veto power, the Senate has complete and final discretion in whether to accept or approve a nomination.

Sharpen up your reading skills. My topic was and remains,

Where is the NYT in denouncing the Kelo decision that came from a lefty activists court?

Could it be that they do not want to say anything that would resemble a disagreement with their leftist buddies.

The conclusion is false. Consent is a responsibility that the nominees are fit to serve the people, not the current president's ideology or agenda.

"If the Courts are going to try to discern "intent" rather than what the language of the law actually says, then why is it "outlandish" to consider the president's words alongside those of the Congress?" -James Joyner

Because Congress, not the president, makes law. Also, the "intent" part of your argument is a straw man, and you know it. Shame on you.

"Why doesn’t the NYT write about the radical views we have seen with the present liberal leaning court?" -Herb

Because the court is not left-leaning, being comprised of about 55% Republicans. Rush Limbaugh has hoodwinked you.

"The assbackwards assumption is that the 60’s are the future. This is a huge problem for the left in that they are stuck in the past." -ICallMasICM

UCM wrong. The ass backwards assumption is that the 50’s are the future. This is a huge problem for the right in that they are stuck in the past, and resent the freedoms of the present."

"No, I say not a step forward or backward, but a step towards the Supreme Court returning to its original function."-G A PHILLIPS

The original Supreme Court established a very strict balance of power between the different branches of government, and made sure that the presidency was none too powerful, something this nominee (and president) would undermine. Furthermore, despite your attack on liberalism, the founding fathers, who created that original supreme court, and the constitution as well, were, in fact, Liberal. Had THEY been conservative, we'd still be singing 'God Save the King'. I always find it amusing when Conservatives want to go back to origins, but don't understand that the Bill of Rights is a part of the original constitution.

If Ruth Bader Ginsburg could replace Byron White (Roe's leading dissenter), why can't Alito replace O'Conner.