[Mulderator]

I realize that's a novel idea to the lefties, but the absolute best response that Roberts came up with in the recent hearings was just that. One of the Senators had asked him about the Constitution and protecting the "little guy" or something to that effect--I forget the question, but Roberts very correctly said that if the Constitution says the "little guy" should win, then that's how he'll decide, but if it says the "Big guy" should win, that's what he'll decide! Of course, you can imagine the sneers from the left--the utter disgust in the idea the Constitution should provide equal rights to both rich and poor!

But this brings up a very important point. First consider this:

Scalia blasts 'judge moralists'

Tuesday, August 30, 2005; Posted: 12:08 p.m. EDT (16:08 GMT)

Scalia said he was saddened to see the Supreme Court deciding moral issues not addressed in the Constitution.SPECIAL REPORT

ORANGE, California (AP) -- U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia blasted what he called "judge moralists" and the infusion of politics into judicial appointments Monday after joining law students in a re-enactment of a 100-year-old landmark case.

Speaking before a packed auditorium at Chapman University, Scalia said he was saddened to see the Supreme Court deciding moral issues not addressed in the Constitution, such as abortion, gay rights and the death penalty. He said such questions should be settled by Congress or state legislatures beholden to the people.

"I am questioning the propriety -- indeed, the sanity -- of having a value-laden decision such as this made for the entire society ... by unelected judges," he said.

Scalia also railed against the principle of the "living Constitution," saying it has led the Senate to try to appoint so-called politically "moderate" judges instead of focusing on professional credentials and ability.

"Now the Senate is looking for moderate judges, mainstream judges. What in the world is a moderate interpretation of a constitutional text? Halfway between what it says and what we'd like it to say?" he said, to laughter and applause.

Scalia didn't make any direct references to the looming confirmation battle for Supreme Court nominee John Roberts, but he did allude to it.

"Each year the conflict over judicial appointments has grown more intense," he said. "One is tempted to shield his eyes from the upcoming spectacle."

Earlier in the day, Scalia was much less serious while re-enacting the landmark 1905 Supreme Court case Lochner v. New York with five recent law school graduates, three undergraduates, California Attorney General Bill Lockyer and a Chapman professor.

The original court ruled that a state law limiting bakers' hours violated a bakery owner's liberty and right to due process. On Monday, however, the mock justices overturned that decision in less than 30 minutes of debate.

"There will be no majority opinion. This will be one of those unpublished opinions that will not be citable before the Supreme Court," Scalia, who played the role of Chief Justice Melville Weston Fuller, joked after announcing the students' decision.

The debate was lighthearted, as participants made jests on topics ranging from Scalia's Italian heritage to his reputation as a die-hard constitutionalist.

Professor John Eastman, who played the role of Lochner's counsel, argued that the state law had been sponsored by German union members who wanted to prevent competition from harder working Italian immigrant bakers.

To that, Scalia replied "Mama mia!"

The re-enactment was part of a full day of activities for Scalia, who was at Chapman to help the university celebrate the 10th anniversary of its law school.

Chapman has a tradition of inviting distinguished jurists to re-enact important Supreme Court cases on their anniversaries, including Brown v. the Board of Education and Marbury v. Madison. Earlier Monday, Scalia taught a constitutional law class.

The left hates Scalia because--dare I say--he actually thinks the Constitution outlines legal rights and its NOT designed for deciding moral issues! It never was designed for that purpose, yet liberals for decades have been using it to engineer social justice, or their opinion of it anyway, and that's not its purpose. Its purpose is to outline a legal framework for basic economic and civil rights (i.e., contractual rights and freedom from unreasonable government intrusion). Economic rights have since been relegated to no rights at all by the left while civil rights have been given paramount importance. Of course, nowhere in the Constitution does it provide for this--its been liberal interpretation of it for the past 50 years or so!

Think about it. This is why the left is so hellbent on stopping judges from being appointed that will just follow the Constitution--they want people who will legislate--who will make morality judgments and implement their own morality to circumvent the legislature and the people's desires--a scary thought!

[bassetman]

Originally Posted by Mulder

I realize that's a novel idea to the lefties, but the absolute best response that Roberts came up with in the recent hearings was just that. One of the Senators had asked him about the Constitution and protecting the "little guy" or something to that effect--I forget the question, but Roberts very correctly said that if the Constitution says the "little guy" should win, then that's how he'll decide, but if it says the "Big guy" should win, that's what he'll decide! Of course, you can imagine the sneers from the left--the utter disgust in the idea the Constitution should provide equal rights to both rich and poor!

But this brings up a very important point. First consider this:



The left hates Scalia because--dare I say--he actually thinks the Constitution outlines legal rights and its NOT designed for deciding moral issues! It never was designed for that purpose, yet liberals for decades have been using it to engineer social justice, or their opinion of it anyway, and that's not its purpose. Its purpose is to outline a legal framework for basic economic and civil rights (i.e., contractual rights and freedom from unreasonable government intrusion). Economic rights have since been relegated to no rights at all by the left while civil rights have been given paramount importance. Of course, nowhere in the Constitution does it provide for this--its been liberal interpretation of it for the past 50 years or so!

Think about it. This is why the left is so hellbent on stopping judges from being appointed that will just follow the Constitution--they want people who will legislate--who will make morality judgments and implement their own morality to circumvent the legislature and the people's desires--a scary thought!

Quote:
Scalia blasts 'judge moralists'

Tuesday, August 30, 2005; Posted: 12:08 p.m. EDT (16:08 GMT)

Scalia said he was saddened to see the Supreme Court deciding moral issues not addressed in the Constitution.SPECIAL REPORT

ORANGE, California (AP) -- U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia blasted what he called "judge moralists" and the infusion of politics into judicial appointments Monday after joining law students in a re-enactment of a 100-year-old landmark case.
...

In 1999

...The Miami Herald declared that George W. Bush won the election just like five US Supreme Court justices said ...

[izme]

The Constitution protects all American Citizens...you know that Muldy and so should anyone with even a basic understanding of it.

A lawyer's or Debater's wet dream, especially if the person you are debating with is unskilled in Constitution truths, it's the Constitutional Amendments that make it far more interesting

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/c...mendments.html

The Constitution can and has been used to either distort or enforce certain issues and arguments, even the oblique ones, The Constutution is the foundation and bricks are either layed down or taken off with time, If one is well read and understands the Constitution. The "reasons" and "arguments" are those of the founding generation according to the structure of the Constitution itself. Made by some religous men etc etc.

Lawyers have been fighting over the Constitution since almost day one. How each of us interprets it is largely based on factual knowledge about it. I think everyone should study it for years. It can change you for the better. And you would actually have a much clearer understanding of how america works and be able to debate here on another level

To those of you not well versed in the Constitution

go here and spend some time, I like this site

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/toc.html

[Ciberblade]

Bassetman, could you please share with me your view of the Supreme Courts involvement of the 2000 election?

[bassetman]

Thanks for the link!

[bassetman]

Originally Posted by Ciberblade

Bassetman, could you please share with me your view of the Supreme Courts involvement of the 2000 election?

My point was how ironic it is for a member of the court who declared Bush the winner of 2000 election should claim foul on politics in an appointment.

[Ciberblade]

Originally Posted by bassetman

My point was how ironic it is for a member of the court who declared Bush the winner of 2000 election should claim foul on politics in an appointment.

I do not recall any member of the Supreme Court declaring Bush the winner. I remember that they put an end to the re-counts of the re-counts, of the re-counts that all came to the same conclusion.

Could you please link to the judge or judges that made this assertion so that I may learn?

[Mulderator]

Originally Posted by bassetman

My point was how ironic it is for a member of the court who declared Bush the winner of 2000 election should claim foul on politics in an appointment.

Maybe its just me, but I don't see the link between your post and the story I posted?

[Mulderator]

Originally Posted by Ciberblade

I do not recall any member of the Supreme Court declaring Bush the winner. I remember that they put an end to the re-counts of the re-counts, of the re-counts that all came to the same conclusion.

Could you please link to the judge or judges that made this assertion so that I may learn?

He doesn't have it--he doesn't even understand the decision as you just pointed out--all he ever did was here the mantra "Bush was selected". I think it perfectly illustrates my point about how these political hacks like bassetman don't actually understand or even care about the facts--its all about the rhetoric.

[bassetman]

This seems appropriate here:

September 17, 2005


Constitution quiz

New York Times News Service

http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dl...EWS06/50917001

[izme]

Originally Posted by bassetman

This seems appropriate here:

September 17, 2005


Constitution quiz

New York Times News Service

http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dl...EWS06/50917001

Interesting and too easy

[Ciberblade]

Originally Posted by bassetman

This seems appropriate here:

September 17, 2005


Constitution quiz

New York Times News Service

http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dl...EWS06/50917001

I thought that was a rather easy question -- you really want to trip people up, ask them when Thomas Jefferson signed the constitution

[Mulderator]

Originally Posted by bassetman

This seems appropriate here:

September 17, 2005


Constitution quiz

New York Times News Service

http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dl...EWS06/50917001

Are you going to answer Ciber's question and mine or just ignore it as you usuall do.

I'm not going to let you get away with this crap anymore. I expect you to back up this nonsense you post or be embarrased for not being able to!

[bassetman]

First off Mr smarty pants lawyer I was having computer problems.

It appears that only the Fl SC shows under the heading of declaring Bush winner.

As to ignoring questions you ignore a lot of mine and others here!

http://www.fallcreek.com/jay/supremecourtdeclares.html

[bassetman]

Originally Posted by Ciberblade

I thought that was a rather easy question -- you really want to trip people up, ask them when Thomas Jefferson signed the constitution

I was amazed at how many people they say go it wrong!