Skip to main content

View Diary: [Updated:] The veto-Alito strategy. Frist must have 60 'Yes' votes (265 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I by and large (none)
    agree with democrats on social issues.  I however prefer conservative judges who will not make up new constitutional rights as they go along, but stick to the original understanding.  If people wish to add to the list of protected rights and activities, they can do it democratically by passing laws and/or amending the Constitution.
    •  Well, at least you're honest about this (none)
      Not that I agree with your view on judges, but you are of course entitled to it.

      But do you really think that the debate as currently framed by so-called "conservatives" as one between "liberal activists" and "conservative originalists" is an honest one, when clearly "conservative" judges have been quite activist in recent years? E.g. Bush v. Gore in 2000, which was about as activist a decision as you can get.

      I won't dispute that liberal judges have pushed the envelope in interpretation (which if done judiciously I have no problem with--it's called Judicial Review and has been around for 200 years, and it would be impossible to survive let alone grow as a nation without it). But so have "conservative" judges. At least grant that much.

      And I use the quotes because to be a true conservative you have to, well, conserve, not extend the law. A favorite college history professor--an avowed conservative in the Goldwater mold--taught me that.

      "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has." Margaret Mead

      by kovie on Fri Jan 27, 2006 at 03:18:22 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Of course (none)
        A judge is not insulated from criticism simply because he pins a sign that says "conservative" to his chest.  As an extreme example, I will use Roy Moore.  Is he conservative?  Sure.  Is he a good judge? Not on your life.

        However, I will take some issue that a "conservative" will only "conserve" and not change the law.  That's like saying that historical conservation if it encounters a building in a dilapidated state can only conserve it in that state, and can never restore it.  Same with conservatives.  if faced with bad precedents they should overrule, but they should overrule strictly on the Constitution and its understanding and not their predilcition for a poltically conservative result.

    •  original understanding (none)
      You mean like congress declares war, the 4th amendment against unwarrented seizures, those kind of constitutional rights that have been so wonderfully upheld by the Republicans?
      •  Have they been challeneged in Court? (none)
        Ummm, no.

        And, btw, 4th Am, does not prohibit warrantless searches and seizures.  Only unreasonable ones.

        •  No. (none)
          The standard is not "reasonable/unreasonable." The standard is PROBABLE CAUSE.

          "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated; and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized."

          •  Nope, wrong (none)
            standard for WARRANTS is probable cause, as you conviniently highlighted.  Standard for searches is reasonable/unreasonable.

            The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated;

            •  good then (none)
              i think the people have reasonable grounds to search our white house without a warrant from head to toe regarding bushco.'s involvement with jackoff.
            •  the plain meaning of the statute... (none)
              says it's unreasonable to search without probable cause.

              The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated; and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.

              Also Arizona v. Hicks "The Court ruled that the police officer's acts with the stereo constituted a search and the police would need to meet the "probable cause" standard in order to lawfully conduct a search of the private equipment.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site