Judicial activism

[Tex]

If you needed any evidence for the chasm in conservative vs. liberal thinking on judicial activism, here it is:

While 82% of voters who support McCain believe the justices should rule on what is in the Constitution, just 29% of Barack Obama’s supporters agree. Just 11% of McCain supporters say judges should rule based on the judge’s sense of fairness, while nearly half (49%) of Obama supporters agree.

More interestingly for politicos is how the public feels, sans partisan lines:

Most American voters (60%) ... says [sic] the Supreme Court should make decisions based on what is written in the constitution, while 30% say rulings should be guided on the judge’s sense of fairness and justice. The number who agree with McCain is up from 55% in August.

Barack Obama will bring to the White House SCOTUS picks who judge what they think is "fair" rather than interpreting the Constitution, as they are supposed to do.

[Levin]

Obama will appoint Justices who have "empathy" for the common man. It's more than just a sense of fairness and justice, it's about judicial advocacy for the common man.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Levin

Obama will appoint Justices who have "empathy" for the common man. It's more than just a sense of fairness and justice, it's about judicial advocacy for the common man.

I have no belief in that.

He will have a litmus test of selecting justices based on racial mix, gender, homophilia, loose constitutional guidelines, producing justices such as Souter or Ginsburg.

The quality of his judges will be litmused and may have Harvard stamped upon them, but commonality with the common man will not be an element of his selections. There is nothing about him that truly relates to anything but the elite.

[Levin]

Originally Posted by Archaea

I have no belief in that.

He will have a litmus test of selecting justices based on racial mix, gender, homophilia, loose constitutional guidelines, producing justices such as Souter or Ginsburg.

The quality of his judges will be litmused and may have Harvard stamped upon them, but commonality with the common man will not be an element of his selections. There is nothing about him that truly relates to anything but the elite.

Obama speaking at a Planned Parenthood event in July 2007:

"We need somebody who's got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it's like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old. And that's the criteria by which I'm going to be selecting my judges."

There's more at the link:

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archi...17/274143.aspx

What do you believe now?

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Tex

If you needed any evidence for the chasm in conservative vs. liberal thinking on judicial activism, here it is:



More interestingly for politicos is how the public feels, sans partisan lines:



Barack Obama will bring to the White House SCOTUS picks who judge what they think is "fair" rather than interpreting the Constitution, as they are supposed to do.

I have a hard time believing that in a real poll most of the people asked would know what the hell the questions even really meant. Was this a push poll?

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

It is also illogical to assume that promoting "fairness" is inherently at conflict with following the precepts of the Constitution. That Tex believes this to be the case speaks volumes on his understanding of the Constitution.

I would say it speaks volumes of how well the Democrat electorate understands the Constitution.

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

I have a hard time believing that in a real poll most of the people asked would know what the hell the questions even really meant. Was this a push poll?

It's Rasmussen. Draw your own conclusions.

[Coonass]

How did we morph judges into Legislators anyway? I thought we had a seperation or government branches for a reason?