* Supreme Court nominees... no Dred Scott supporters to be nominated

[LDS Jock]

"In March of 1857, the United States Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, declared that all blacks -- slaves as well as free -- were not and could never become citizens of the United States. The court also declared the 1820 Missouri Compromise unconstitutional, thus permiting slavery in all of the country's territories."

from http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4h2933.html


When asked about who he would choose, * told us. "Let me give you a couple of examples, I guess, of the kind of person I wouldn't pick.

I wouldn't pick a judge who said that the Pledge of Allegiance couldn't be said in a school because it had the words "under God" in it. I think that's an example of a judge allowing personal opinion to enter into the decision-making process as opposed to a strict interpretation of the Constitution.

Another example would be the Dred Scott case, which is where judges, years ago, said that the Constitution allowed slavery because of personal property rights. "

transcript here http://www.debates.org/pages/trans2004c.html

:wtf: Where did he pull Dred Scott from? I am relieved to know he doesn't support it.

Kerry's answer was perfect.

"I subscribe to the Justice Potter Stewart standard. He was a justice on the Supreme Court of the United States. And he said the mark of a good judge, good justice, is that when you're reading their decision, their opinion, you can't tell if it's written by a man or woman, a liberal or a conservative, a Muslim, a Jew or a Christian. You just know you're reading a good judicial decision."

What are everyone's thoughts on this?

[grace0418]

1. Besides that Bush is a moran?

I thought it was brilliant. Bush exposed himself even though he didn't realize it. His first example was basically saying he wouldn't choose a liberal justice (i.e. one who feels that religion and state don't mix), and the second was just bizarre.

Then, on top of that Kerry countered by QUOTING Bush saying "What we need are more conservative judges."

[loyalsister]

2. Freudian slip?

I don't honestly believe that he's that blatently backward racist, but I think he mangled that one enough to plant "reasonable doubt" to form an argument against my assertion.
I think he just mangled it because he was so thrown off by the other criticisms. He thought he had an people pleaser for everyone with that one. I think he was searching his inarticulate little self for conservative and liberal perspective pleasing verdicts that he knew about, and he really really blew it.
:shrug:

[The Blue Flower]

3. the 'pledge allegiance'

He actually referred to the 'pledge allegiance'-- which is how young school children who don't know the meaning but recite it by rote refer to it. As in "I pledge allegiance..."

[StrongbadTehAwesome]

4. basically Bush said

he wanted a "strict constructionist," then tried to explain what that concept was but got his facts mixed up. Dred Scott is actually a case that highlights the downfalls of strict constructionism. The language of the Constitution obviously allows for slavery (that whole 3/5 of a person crap), so they decided that the "property" rights of slaveholders would be upheld. So in saying he wouldn't want a judge that would support it, he was essentially contradicting himself and saying that he'd want an "activist" judge.

It always kills me to hear Bush say that he wants strict constructionist judges, though. The ideas of "constructionist" and "activist" don't really attach themselves to political ideologies well. A strict constructionist interpretation of the 1st Amendment would lead to the most liberal application of the amendment you've ever seen. The language itself reads "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." So there'd be no "free speech zones," no 'grief ban' for Iraq images in the media, etc., etc.

Bush's "favorite justice" Scalia calls himself a strict constructionist, but he's really just a conservative activist. He supports the opening prayer in Congress, "under God" in the pledge, etc., because according to him, America has some sort of "historical relationship" with Christianity. That's certainly not anywhere in the constitution.

Ok, far too many poli sci classes for me. I'm shutting up now.

[Spinzonner]

5. I'm no expert on judicial philosophy

but I've read some articles where Scalia is referred to as a Traditionalist rather than the literalist he likes to see himself as.

In that view, he is inclined to defer to what he considers cultural norms of the past, particularly when the Constitution was written and laws he is rendering judgment upon. That, of course, it neither literalism or strict constructionism.

[Piperay]

6. I thought the answer

was just plain weird. :crazy:

[Supersedeas]

7. Mr. Resolve does a lot of guessing-examples, I guess, of the kind

I guess that you'd call me a good steward of the land.

Yet, the Network pundits find him to be strong and steadfast.

[w4rma]

8. Bush is stuffing the courts with radical extremists. That's what * means.

He chose Dread Scott, because many folks on our side wouldn't take him seriously. But yet, that's really where HE draws the line for evilness. No slavery. But anything else is on the table.

Imho, instead of laughing at him, you should take him seriously. He takes himself seriously. And he's already proven himself to be a total unstable nutcase.

[radfringe]

9. Phew! am I relieved...

glad to hear bush* doesn't support Dred Scott decision... :eyes:

bet that took a big load off of the American people's minds...

meanwhile...........


Got WOOD-y?