Burr: Qualified, non-activist judge

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.

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.

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?

So what do you think with Sotomayor's statement?

Please share. Never heard of her before now, and all I get from a mainstream search are news stories about how she's a done deal.

Keep in mind I don't read the wingnuttery you do.

And if I can teach you anything it's that. The world is big place, and doesn't have an RSS feed representing itself like the fringe on both sides do.

Oh, sorry, you already posted it. See? Normal people don't read what you say.

She's refreshing. Thanks. I support her honesty.

So we agree there...

So what do you think with Sotomayor's statement?

Would you like or dislike Burr if he voted against her based on this statement?

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.

Gosh - you are really stretching the content of Burr's quote in order to attack him.

First of all, the Constitution is very precise in its wording, thus the initial judgment on i.e. Roe vs. Wade was an activist judgment in the "activist v. non-activist" argument.

Secondly, the talking heads have already touted the name of Sotomayor as a possible replacement.

Here is a recent quote made by her as far as her views on judicial activism...which I do find disturbing considering of the system of checks and balances prescribed in the US Constitution...

"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.”

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

Gosh, are you a lawyer?

No Ma'am, I'm an American that doesn't like being told I have no right to privacy any better than any other. And knowing the law, and it's history, I can't find a thing in your post to disagree with, especially as you just agreed with me on mine. I fully appreciate Burr won't take a stand. That's why I asked the question.

Anyone anti-choice has to do as you did, and assert there is no right to privacy in America.

Good luck with that and your law degree.

Gosh, are you a lawyer? I take it you aren't, or are far removed from your basic Con Law classes. If you were, you'd know that the right to privacy is nowhere in the text of the Constitution.

Instead, it is "read into" the constitution as being within the "penumbra" of the constitution. The court in Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), read into the 1st Amendment, 4th Amendment and 5th Amendment to imply that "Privacy" was a protected right; this was following a trend of around 30 years of legal academic work and some vague dicta in cases suggesting the same.

The right to privacy may be rather settled, but its implications for things like abortion or sodomy laws are not. While laws can't be made to violate the Equal Protection Clause regarding sodomy and abortion, it is unclear as to whether abortion or homosexual marriage are allowable.

Roe v. Wade is still very unsettled, and has been limited recently to its facts. An activist judge would indeed seek to spread open the doors to this "Penumbra" of privacy rights, and expand access to abortion. Therefore, your premise is severely flawed.

Now, you're right that an activist judge would be one who revokes Roe v. Wade's protections wholesale; this is a doubtful occurrence, as modern conservative jurisprudence seeks only to limit abortion, and has never gotten near the concept of overruling Roe as precedent. Other than talking heads, you won't hear jurists of the most conservative bent talking about overturning it at this moment.

Yes AfterCancer, but Burr should say it plain.

Not this "non-activist" stuff. That's what his party does time and again accusing the mainstream of their own sins.

The law is the law. Has been for decades. Does Burr want it overturned by activists or is he now a mainstream American and pro-choice?

It's a simple question.

That's pretty clear code for "I'm going beat down every nomination Obama makes" and who cares what Burr wants or supports at this point? It's clearly not the people of North Carolina.

An "activist judge" would overturn the standing law protecting women and negate the right to privacy for all Americans.

If Burr means what he says, I support his support of a strict interpretation of our Founding Documents supporting privacy, freedom and choice.

Thank you for your Pro-Choice stand against activist judges Senator Burr!