newsobserver.com projects - John Roberts - Comments

Red acted

James_Protzman — Wed, 27 May 2009 17:35:36 -0400

Heh.

Re: Not a Democrat

cdtew — Wed, 27 May 2009 15:37:36 -0400

redacted

Raging Liberal

CitizenOpinionated — Wed, 27 May 2009 11:55:32 -0400

Awww fine - Raging Liberal

Not a Democrat

James_Protzman — Wed, 27 May 2009 11:26:37 -0400

Get your facts straight.

Re: Nonsense

cdtew — Wed, 27 May 2009 09:29:53 -0400

James,

Just as an FYI, the part that mattered as substantive law in Gore v. Bush was decided 7-2, with Breyer and Souter joining the 5-justice majority.

The 5-4 decision that liberals love to claim occurred was actually on a relatively minor point, one which neither party fully argued in brief or oral argument. That decision, which allowed Katherine Harris' certification of the election result in favor of Bush to stand, was judicial expedience. As the Equal Protection issue had already been decided 7-2 in favor of Bush, Gore would have lost long-term in a recount. Gore knew this, and had actively tried to avoid this single issue, placing almost 100% emphasis on arguing why a recount the way he wanted it would not have violated the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

Again, Gore lost, 7-2, because the way he wanted to do things would have violated the Equal Protection clause. Let's let this sink in.

Re: Nonsense

CitizenOpinionated — Wed, 27 May 2009 08:23:02 -0400

First of all, I for one was against the SCOTUS making a ruling in the Presidential election of 2000, but James how much longer are you going to be bitter about the presidency of Bush?

Franken and the liberals have used the courts to return the favor.

Being against judicial activism is contrary to your definition. Being against is actually for upholding the Constitution.

Perhaps you need to brush up your history and understand that the liberals have used the court to fundamentally change the legislative process.

Legal Misunderstanding

Simply put, judges can not be held accountable for their "judicial activism" since they are not removed from office through elections, but only retirements.

What is the purpose of the legislative branch if we are going to allow the courts to make legislative decisions?

Lest not forget that prior to yesterday's ruling the California Supreme Court overturned the outcome of a ballot initiative on gay marriage only to have the same initiative put back on the ballot and the voters' to again voice their opposition.

It is funny, I am the conservative that promotes giving the power to the people, yet James is a "democrat" and he is for giving the power to a select group of elitist.

Re: Burr: Review Sotomayor's record

dahedgehog — Tue, 26 May 2009 22:53:12 -0400

I love how everyone pretends to be outraged about nominees, then they end up sailing through. But if working yourselves into a lather is what makes you chumps feel better about yourselves...

Nonsense

James_Protzman — Tue, 26 May 2009 19:08:22 -0400

Decisions about what the constitution "means" are completely and irrevocably open to interpretation, and those interpretations are always made by human beings. Surely you've had that experience yourself, have you not? When you have a scared soldier stand in the door, you go with your gut to ensure that both the mission is fulfilled and the soldier is safe. Your instincts about what to do in that moment of truth come from experience. That is exactly what happens in the US Supreme Court.

Being against judicial activism is like being against wind. Both are matters of fact and wishing they didn't exist is silly. Conservative justices engage in the exact same amount of "activism" that liberal judges do. The only difference is, you apparently approve of the former, but not the latter.

If the Constitution were written to be followed, George Bush would have never been president. The SCOTUS decision that led to his coronation was the most activist in the history of the court.

James

PS That would be "constructionist."

Re: Burr: Review Sotomayor's record

combatjumpmaster — Tue, 26 May 2009 18:55:01 -0400

If you truly understood the Constitutional process of Senate confirmation, you'd know that Burr must have a vote. Not every representative or senator is a lawyer (thank goodness). By your logic Obama should not be in the Oval Office because of his serious lack of executive experience. The only thing he's ever run is the Harvard Law Review (and I congratulate him for that) and both sides of his mouth (which I deplore him for). Peace.

Re: Burr: Review Sotomayor's record

combatjumpmaster — Tue, 26 May 2009 18:51:01 -0400

I am opposed to any nominee who considers the effects of SCOTUS decisions on the parties involved. Their job is to resolve Constitutional issues, not run "The People's Court" or "Judge Judy". I am also opposed to judicial activism, and by her own words and recent decision in the New Haven fire-fighting exam case convict her of this. The Constitution is written to be followed, not twisted and misinterpreted by activist judges. Empathy and the effect of law is for our elected officials to determine with our input (when they listen). At least Janet Napolitano didn't make it, thank God. And if you can't tell, I am a strict constructionalist...

Re: Burr: Review Sotomayor's record

CitizenOpinionated — Tue, 26 May 2009 18:44:20 -0400

Just like it is humorous that Barack Obama is President of the United States with his community organizing resume...

Re: Burr: Review Sotomayor's record

ncsu66 — Tue, 26 May 2009 16:33:02 -0400

I fully understand the constitutional process of Senate confirmation. However, it is almost comical for someone with such limited qualifications like Senator Burr to be passing judgment upon someone with superb qualifications like Judge Sotomayor. It is almost like putting the inmates in charge of the asylum.

Re: Burr: Qualified, non-activist judge

CitizenOpinionated — Tue, 05 May 2009 00:10:58 -0400

I see what you are saying...

I think the Senate nomination hearing should be very interesting. At the same time, I think it is a comment that is candid and should be question at the hearing. I am quite sure it will come up sense it has made the headlines now so...

I am not sure she will make through the process...but everyone knows and must accept it will be a liberal.

Re: Burr: Qualified, non-activist judge

Gosh — Mon, 04 May 2009 21:21:26 -0400

Can you please explain the divergence in your opinion already?

I said she's refreshing and I appreciate her honesty.

If you've ever watched the Senate grill a nominee, you know what I mean.

"Senator, I respectfully refuse to answer that question."

She's laughing her head off in that short clip. I don't think it either qualifies or disqualifies her without context, but I'd love to see her before the Senate either way.

Re: Burr: Qualified, non-activist judge

CitizenOpinionated — Mon, 04 May 2009 16:10:47 -0400

Gosh - I even think you disagree to some extent with the concept of judicial activism...or I at least hope so...

Of course I do! That's what I said. And reversing legal precedent for ideology, or restricting granted rights or even awarding the Presidency to George W. Bush after getting less votes in 2000 all prove the point that Judicial Activism goes against the grain of Democracy

With this statement you say that you are not a proponent of judicial activism!

This is her recent quote...endorsing judicial activism!

"All of the legal defense funds out there—they’re looking for people with court of appeals experience. Because court of appeals is where policy is made. And I know, I know this is on tape and I should never say that because we don’t make law. [Laughs] I know. I know. [Laughter] I’m not promoting it, I’m not advocating it, I’m…y’know.”

Can you please explain the divergence in your opinion already?