You want an example? Go read the ruling in the Supreme Court case Griswold v. Connecticut (1965). Justice Douglas virtually admitted that he had always wanted to give Americans a right to privacy. Even though no such thing is said in the Constitution. So his job was to come up with some poppycock that would justify it. Go read his ruling and judge for yourself.

……Judging by the mangled English you’re the one the comprehension problems…..and I didn’t say you were a “Bush fanatic” but that you generally supported him which your postings have made clear you do.

“Er……I think you mean doesn’t subvert the law and constitution to his or her own judgement…”

Quite right; thanks for the correction.

“…how do you square this with your support of Bush…”

Damn. You were so rational for a moment!

(*SMILE*)

Otto. You don’t have to read and remember every word I’ve ever typed here, but for God’s sake, if I’m your idea of a “pro-Bush fanatic” either your reading comprehension is way off or else… you’re on something.

(*CHUCKLE*) (*RUEFUL SHRUG*)

“Someone needs to help me understand all this ’strick constructionist’ speak.”

OK. I’m here for you. What’s so confusing…???

“No judge is legislating from the bench…”

If you truly believe this then what must you think of Judge Sotomayor’s comments to the contrary? Do you believe she was kidding…??? Do you believe she’s simply misinformed…? Do you believe that though she believes Judges legislate from the bench she’s simply wrong…?

“I just don’t get the right’s argument here.”

Taking you at your word, I’m at a loss as to how to explain my position in any clearer fashion than I’ve done both here on this thread and on previous threads where the matter has come up.

I mean… granted… Otto just caught an instance where I was obviously typing so fast that I mangled what I was attempting to write.. but Otto “got” the point regardless… it was obviously clear to him what I had “meant” to write.

(*SHRUG*)

I suppose my response to you is that I don’t “get” what it is you’re not getting about my position.

Feel free to rephrase and I’ll do my best to answer any further questions.

BILL

But Ms. Sotomayor’s personality is totally irrelevant.

I don’t care if she’s “obnoxious” or bubbly or the life of the party.

A few days ago, in another discussion thread, I wrote that I hoped that we could confine our examination of Ms. Sotomayor to her judicial philosophy, and avoid attacks upon her character. Not only is that the ethical way to go about this, politically it’s the ONLY way that won’t damage the GOP’s brand with Hispanic voters even more.

I’m simply not going to involve myself in any discussions of Ms. Sotomayor’s personality or personal background.

The very nature of being a judge is to apply the law to a conflict. That means one must understand the conflict and the law and then apply the law. All of this black and white thinking seem antithetical to the nature of a judge’s role. The judges are deciding on very narrow intepretation of laws by the time it reaches the Supreme Court, which is the whole point of the Supreme Court.

I want the smartest most judicious person possible to join the other 8 justices in hearing both arguments and adjudicating the law. That requires listening and understanding the context to the arguments and being able to then interpret the law and apply it to the situation.

I don’t understand the right’s argument here about not legislating from the bench. No judge is legislating from the bench, they are interpreting the law and applying it to cases. There will naturally be implications to their rulings, one way or the other. I just don’t get the right’s argument here.

…….Er……I think you mean doesn’t subvert the law and constitution to his or her own judgement…..but assuming you’d got it right which is what I assume you were trying to do…….how do you square this with your support of Bush who has spent most of the past eight years trying to subvert the constitution?

Here’s the deal, Marcus:

I don’t care if a judge is personally in favor or or opposed to [Fill In The Blank] policy or whether he or she believes said law or said wording and intent of the Constitution is “good” or “bad.”

All I want from a Judge is to rule according to his or her best understanding of what the Constitutional provision or simple law MEANT in the common vernacular when it was passed.

“Conservative” vs. “Liberal” shouldn’t even apply to Judges acting in their official capacity, but as Judge Sotomayor herself points out, most Judges have neither the integrity, self-control, or respect for the Constitution and the Rule of Law that they should.

Still… sticking to political shorthand… when I think “conservative” Judge I think someone who at least recognizes that it’s not his or her job to legislate from the bench, let alone override the clear text/meaning/intent of Constitutional provisions.

I’m not saying it never happens… I’m just tell you that when I use the term “conservative” Judge I’m using it in the sense of “conservative” in recognizing the proper role of the Judge in the American system of justice and within the context of our Constitutional Separation of Powers doctrine.

A “liberal” Judge? Political shorthand… someone who misunderstands their role – or perhaps doesn’t “misunderstand,” but rather, simply refuses to play his or her proper role – as a Judge in a representative democracy and is willing to rule not based upon an only an honest reading of the law and its intent, but rather, he or she is willing to substitute his or her “judgment” regarding POLICY for that of the duly elected representatives of the People… the Founders, legislators, and executive (who have either signed these laws into “the books” or else had a veto overridden so as to allow a law to legally go into effect absent executive signature).

I have no problem whatsoever with a Latina Judge who personally supports or opposes policies and laws where I would take the opposite tack; what I have a problem with is any Judge… Latina, WASP, man, woman, Jew, Gentile, straight, gay… who doesn’t hold him or her self up to the judicial standard I believe in – i.e. who doesn’t subvert his or her own judgment to that of the Constitution and the Law.

The sad thing is… I know full I’m the odd man out with such “old fashioned” beliefs.

BILL

“After all, this is the guy who tried to kill my dad.”