COMMENTS:
Don't know why, but I was under the impression that you support abortion.
The first SIX choices are my sincere hopes. The next ones are springboards for discussion.
Per abortion, I don't personally support it, but I support other people's rights to have it. I do have a problem with abortions performed after the first trimester, unless the mother's life is threatened or terrible problems are discovered with the baby.
Just my own opinions.
by mojo on Mon Jul 11, 05 8:34am
[+]
Got it!
I hope he's literate, so he could read the constitution and follow it. That seems to be a problem lately.
Bush's desire is to nominate right-wing activist judges who will legislate from the bench on behalf of extremist rightwing religious and political groups. In other words, to eliminate one more set of checks and balances on Bushy's march to turning the US into a fascist police state.
What herzog said.
No political agenda- nail on the head. The law's not about politics- it's about people's lives.
With the Constitution, a "strict constuctionist" who takes the "original intent" of the Founding Fathers seriously and does not try to interject erroneous modern interpretations into their analysis of constitutional issues. In regard to federalism, someone sho thinks that the federal government's rights should not be expanded any further, nor that novel legal theories should be utilized for doing so. Someone who favors the rights of individual states over that of the federal government and of individual citizens over the rights of the sovereign states. He or she should be a strong supporter of the First Amendment (freedom of speech and of the press and of assembly, in particular) *and* the Second Amendment (right to bear arms). Someone who does not try to use foreign law as persuasive authority in their decisions. Someone who respects property rights and does not favor income redistribution.
That's a good start...
"sho" ="who"
..And "strict constructionist"! (-:
Gad, I'm tired.
|
