Comments on: Two Constitutions: Republican and Democrat

By: Phil Nolan

Phil Nolan — Wed, 06 Jul 2005 00:51:04 +0000

From what I see, this isn't right. the line should be drawn for the Democrats anywhere between 1933 and the 60's; Dems like the New Deal Court, by and large, and Hugo Black (leading to the incorporation of the Bill of Rights into the 14th Amendment). Republicans would like, to some degree, to turn the clock back to the 1920's and 30's, when the Court was filled by activist conservative judges, who struck down legislation designed to regulate, among other things, economic markets (e.g. minimum wage laws). That Court was as activist as the Warren court, but tilted to the other side. The fact is that both sides want activist judges -- each arguing about the bias. Speaking of Bush v. Gore, that was one of the most "activist" decisions of the past 100 years, and flew in the face of everything Scalia ever wrote about "States' Rights" -- or the Equal Protection clause, for that matter.

By: Vote for Judges

Vote for Judges — Tue, 05 Jul 2005 19:15:43 +0000

Next Justice: A Disappointment

Odds are we conservatives will be disappointed, maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but soon and for the rest of the judge's life. For two reasons:

By: Dennis Neylon

Dennis Neylon — Tue, 05 Jul 2005 12:07:51 +0000

I tend to agree with the quote...although I am not so sure I would place the cut-off at Brown - perhaps somewhere in the early 60s....what I find more interesting, and certainly true, is the Democrats issue with elcetions and elected officials other than themselves...perfect example would be the 200 election, in which elected officials (elction commisoners, state legislators, secretary of state) were "pushed aside" in favor of judges, which backfired when Supreme Court said basically, the law is the law and the courts can't ignore it or rewrite to suit the situation....of course, this was "stealing" the election, since it meant votes that were countable counted and those that were not were not....