(The Court doesn’t do things that it knows it can’t get away with. That’s why it won’t legalize same-sex marriage. Not yet anyway.)
paul006 on May 7, 2008 at 2:57 PM

Perhaps you can correct an apparent misconception of mine. Seemingly a few dictionaries’ misconception as well:

Judicial:
1 a: of or relating to a judgment, the function of judging, the administration of justice, or the judiciary b: belonging to the branch of government that is charged with trying all cases that involve the government and with the administration of justice within its jurisdiction — compare executive, legislative

Legislative
1 a: having the power or performing the function of legislating b: belonging to the branch of government that is charged with such powers as making laws, levying and collecting taxes, and making financial appropriations — compare executive, judicial

Seems as though the legislative branch would “legalize same-sex marriage” if that was to happen. The judicial branch would judge the law if challenged in court.

Of all the candidates, I believed that Giuliani would have nominated the best judges.

I don’t believe that his record supports your assertion, but no matter – I’m much more interested in how disturbingly hot MK looks in the librarian getup.

Weebork on May 8, 2008 at 11:56 AM

Good question…look at his record of support, and Obama’s record of support (or dissent). That will answer your question.
He doesn’t talk about conservative judges in the political sense, he states he wants judges to interpret the laws, not make law. Making law is reserved for congress. Obama wants the judges to make law.

Of all the candidates, I believed that Giuliani would have nominated the best judges. As a prosecutor, he understood the need for originalism and judicial modesty.

Fred Thompson is a solid federalist and would have done well here also.

Some of you folks need to trade in your fantasies for some rational analysis. No matter how ticked you are at McCain for some UNRELATED issue, don’t translate that into an idiotic position on this one.

With McCain acting the fool it is truly possible that Barack and Michelle will be ruining our life.

Then you need to engage your brain. McCain seems to hate conservatives as much as Obama does, perhaps more.

flenser on May 7, 2008 at 5:29 PM

Either you need to start drinking earlier, or stop drinking earlier. Tool.

Nonfactor on May 7, 2008 at 8:58 PM

A judges job is to stand up for LEGAL justice as written in our laws and in the constitution. Standing up for social justice was the basis of the Bolshevic Revolution that transformed Russia into the Soviet Union…and we all know how well the social justice there turned out.

Judges by their very nature have the power to change American law. Sorry if you don’t like that.

Nonfactor on May 7, 2008 at 8:58 PM

Nice non sequitir. So what? That has nothing to do with the issue of imposing social policy, which activist judges more than certainly do. When the Massachussetts Supreme Court ordered the legislature to enact legislation that the court mandated, that was imposing social policy.

When the Blackmun decision invented a bogus right to kill a living infant from the theoretical “right to privacy” in Roe vs Wade, they imposed social policy on the country. It happens all the time, and no, it is not what judges are supposed to do.

Just another reason why Obama is an idiot, and a failure at the one thing he is supposed to be good at: constitutional law. What, exactly, is this douchebag good at, besides making speeches that liberal lemmings cry over?

Rational Thought on May 7, 2008 at 6:23 PM

Thank you.

Nonfactor on May 7, 2008 at 8:58 PM

No, they have the power to interpret the law, to some degree. Or at least, that is what they should be doing. Traditionally, “social justice” has been, in the main, the imposition of policy through improper means, such as judicial activism.

Federal judges do NOT write or make law, except for in rare “Bivens” type (federal common law remedies) situations and in a few other rare exceptions. Therefore, when Obama says “stand up for social justice” what he quite obviously means is that he wants judges who will ignore legislative intent, stare decisis and plain meaning in favor of an outcome that the justice feels will be beneficial to a subgroup. These are legislative decisions, not judicial. If you think otherwise, then you should reconsider whether you want to live in this democratic republic under our Constitution.

Judges by their very nature have the power to change American law. Sorry if you don’t like that.

Thanks for the links!

At least Rudy won’t be appointing any judges.

I was at the Federalist Society conference last Fall when Olson introduced Rudy.

Notwithstanding Olson’s intro, Rudy elicited a tepid, measured response.

I wondered why someone as seemingly conservative as Olson could promote a Rudy candidacy, so I chalked it up to personal friendship.

But when I saw that Olson jumped on the McCain bandwagon, I discerned that he is simply a party man.

A fine man, no doubt, but I can no longer value his opinion on these types of matters.

Between Obama and McCain, I don’t see how any conservative sane person can think that Obama would end up being better for America. Or that McCain would be worse.

Then you need to engage your brain.McCain seems to hate conservatives as much as Obama does, perhaps more.

Looks like I got my answer.

Then you need to engage your brain. McCain seems to hate conservatives as much as Obama does, perhaps more.

flenser on May 7, 2008 at 5:29 PM

O’RLY? Obama Voted AGAINST John Roberts and Alito.

Of all the candidates, I believed that Giuliani would have nominated the best judges. As a prosecutor, he understood the need for originalism and judicial modesty. He also had Ted Olson as his chief adviser on the judiciary, a man who spent years arguing cases at the Supreme Court and also saw the need for originalism up close and personal. Olson has now become an unofficial adviser to the McCain campaign after endorsing him in February after Giuliani’s withdrawal from the Republican primaries.

Rudy was my pick in the Primaries from the start, he’s very smart he should have gotten the nomination.

Between Obama and McCain, I don’t see how any conservative sane person can think that Obama would end up being better for America. Or that McCain would be worse.

Then you need to engage your brain. McCain seems to hate conservatives as much as Obama does, perhaps more.

If elected, McCain can either nominate center-left justices, or he can leave the seats vacant. The Democrats will permit nothing else, and they don’t have to.

Not until 2010 at least, when they have to answer to the voters, not all of whom are Vermont-style granola eaters.

Giuliani is laughing today, but if President Obama fills those slots with a Democratic majority in the Senate, conservatives won’t be laughing then or for the next twenty years afterwards.

Sorry Ed, this line of extortion won’t work. I don’t trust McCain to appoint conservative jurists…but don’t expect me to swallow this crap sandwich and smile.
spmat on May 7, 2008 at 11:38 AM

Between Obama and McCain, I don’t see how any conservative sane person can think that Obama would end up being better for America. Or that McCain would be worse.

At least I understood the logic behind Bush Derangement Syndrome, because sufferers were all democrats. At least a few of these people admit that they will actually vote for McCain. At least there are a few.

He’s just trading one small value for a large value, i.e. he trades the smaller value of positively proscribing abortion for the larger value of a judicial philosophy that gives him what he wants most of the time.

Sure. The idea that there actually IS a written constitution and that it actually says some things and not others is just a bad joke, right?. Everything is simply a matter of different interpetations, there is not right or wrong.

You’re a parody of liberalism.