Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"Napolitano’s philosophy generally has a strong originalist bent, while not accepting the limitations of the older types of originalism espoused by Robert Bork and Justice Antonin Scalia with respect to the Constitution’s open-ended provisions like the Ninth Amendment. Napolitano finds such limitations too restricting on a judge’s ability to apply the Natural Law to decide cases where the liberty of the individual is at stake. Napolitano is a strong believer in economic liberties and argues that the decision Lochner v. New York was overruled in error in the West Cost Hotel case, as the Contracts Clause and the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment Due Process clauses protect a sphere of personal economic liberty."
Thanks for making my point. Alito got confirmed, didn't he? And Alito is a conservative, isn't he?
Your point was that Senators try to influence the slant of the Supreme Court. I posted a list of 24 Dem Senators who tried to do so including Obama, Biden, Hillary Clinton, Harry Reid, Chuck Shumer, et al. If the Dems try to do so, what makes you think the Rs wouldn't as well?
The Senate's duty is to maintain the conservative slant of the Supreme Court??
Because Sandoval is a Republican, he's qualified, he brings to the court exactly what Republicans are always claiming they desire, someone whose opinions would be based on rule of law, without bias.
That's what Republicans say they want, but what they really want is something else?
There is no person on the face of the Earth who has no biases. When was the last time a Democrat appointed judge voted on the conservative side on a 5-4 decision or even sided with the 5 so called conservative judges on a 6-3 decision?
The fact is gun rights and religious freedom is at stake here.
There is no person on the face of the Earth who has no biases. When was the last time a Democrat appointed judge voted on the conservative side on a 5-4 decision or even sided with the 5 so called conservative judges on a 6-3 decision?
The fact is gun rights and religious freedom is at stake here.
I don't think gun rights or religious freedom are in any danger.
Justice Breyer has voted on the conservative side several times.
Every single Judge is from Harvard or Yale. Jews, Hispanics, Catholics, Italian, Black, Lesbian.
Seems like the majority race and religion in this country is highly under represented on the Court.
White Evangelical Protestant from a Western Law school.
One of the reasons I like Sandoval is that he's not from Harvard or Yale, he graduated from Ohio State. And he's not an East Coast denizen, he's from the West. He's qualified. He brings a different sensibility to the court. And since he's a Republican, it makes it that much harder for Republican senators to dismiss his nomination.
Is that the only thing the Senate has to determine? no. no that is NOT what the senate has to decide.
The Senate is an independent body that has a very specific duty outlined in the Constitution and in the Federalist Papers.
As it relates to Advice and Consent of Presidential Nominations, The Senate is a CHECK on the power of the presidency.
And very specifically The Constitution outlines that it is the SENATE and ONLY the Senate that determines what that Advice and Consent looks like.
(let stay clear on what is our opinion and what is in fact law...)
In Schumer's 2007 speech, after the a term of Roberts and Alito, he said:
'The Supreme Court is dangerously out of balance. Consider the Constitutional harm ... that is in store if those few are joined by just one more ideological ally. I will do everything in my power to prevent that from happening. The Supreme Court is dangerously out of balance. We cannot afford to see Justice Stevens replaced by another Roberts; or Justice Ginsburg by another Alito.'
That sentiment and approach to Senate consent is more important then the one sentence that's being publicized.
Schumer was amazingly honest. He urged his party to reject any nominee who had a 'conservative' ideology.
The R's today could take Schumer's speech, substitute Sotomayor and Kagan for Roberts and Alito, liberal for conservative, and proceed to reject any nominee in the mold of Obama's previous nominees.
I don't think gun rights or religious freedom are in any danger.
Justice Breyer has voted on the conservative side several times.
Cite a case that was controversial and/or had significance. There isn't one. And even if Breyer has voted with the conservative bloc a tiny amount of the time, he wasn't even appointed by Obama.
From Obama, we got mindless liberal drones Kagan and Sotomayor. No need for a third, and the left wing nuts aren't getting a third.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
