Bush wants "strict constructionist" Supreme Court Justices.

[CANDO]

These idiots like to portray themselves as protectors of the Constitution, but how often are they attempting to add amendments? Flag burning, gay marriage, and now allowing foreign born citizens to run for the presidency are the latest attempts at altering it. They also fail to realize the Constitution is a document restricting the powers of government as well as empowering the people. They time and again try to use new amendments to restrict citizens and divide us as a nation.

[rpannier]

1. Divide and Conquer

The scrub/croney motto.
Also --- dumb as a fence (another motto)

[mmonk]

2. He lied-reconstructionists are what he's after

[charlie]

3. They've been using that "strict constructionist" malarkey

since his Daddy's first run. I doubt there's anyone left who doesn't know it's codespeak for authoritarian rightwing wanker. Especially since Scalia is supposed to be an SC nonpareil.

[Orangepeel]

4. what was that Dred Scott nonsense last night?

I'm not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure that that decision was pre-14th Amendment.

Wouldn't that make the justice who made that decision a "strict constructionist?"

[mhollis]

5. The Constitution was ignored

when this US Supreme Court picked Bush for President.

In their carefully worded statement, the majority of the SCOTUS said that their decision re: Florida recounts was not to be used as a precident, mainly because they knew that what they were doing was totally disreguarding the Constitution.

In the Constitution, the Electoral College is a mechanism whereby the States are ascendant over the Federal Government in the choosing of the President:

Article II, Section 1 Clause 2:

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress ...

I don't read anything in there that says that the Federal Government will step in and "help" them.

In other words, Republicans want "strict constructionist" justices only to the extent that it lines up with their religious beliefs and prejudices.

[fishnfla]

6. Point of information (Pardon my ignorance)

What is a constructionist? is that a jurist who sticks to the articles of the constitution as the original framers had intended?

I'm guessing a revisionist would be the opposite then? Like one who would put an amendment in the constitution that bans gay marriage?

[Orangepeel]

7. it's someone who wants to ban abortion

at least that's what it really means. what it is supposed to mean, is someone who interprets the words of the constitution literally. For example, a strict constructionist would see the words "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech" and think that no law means no law.

[charlie]

8. As far as Scalia is concerned, yes

A literal reading isn't enough, one has to try to divine the original intent of the authors. For a 15th century guy, the ideas of the 18th century must be heart-stoppingly futuristic and utopian.

[porphyrian]

9. Yeah, bush is a stupid dick. - n/t

[Hepburn]

10. I had to LMBO on this one.

Eisenhower wanted a conservative jurist on the bench, too, and he appointed Earl Warren - a conservative Republican. LOL, the Warren Court is responsible for nearly all of the "liberal" rulings which still to this day drive the righties nuts. Bush is so stupid that he does not realize what the term "strict constructionist" means. It means that the government is probhibited from doing certain things and it is strictly construed or that if something is guaranteed, then the government must fully support the same. A good example on prohibitions are the protections under the First Amendment - that is what led to prayer being removed from the public school. As to guarantees of rights, the Warren Court expanded the protections under the 4th, 5th and 6th Amendments. I only pray that if Bush is elected that he carries through on this type of appointment - he will liberalize the Sup Ct again!

What a clueless idiot! Just amazing how little that man knows and understands!

[kskiska]

11. I loved Kerry's answer to that question…

That a judge's political persuasion shouldn't be evident in his/her rulings. And the perfect candidate for the Supreme Court would be Mario Cuomo, who is able to put aside his personal beliefs and base his opinions on the law.