user created polls & quizzes      


would you : ethics :
[+] ballot by mojo

From what I've read, we will learn the president's pick this week.

(The first six choices are my sincere hopes.)

Immense background in U.S. law
Lack of preconceived notions about issues
Independent thinker - no political agenda
Anti-death penalty
Not a rightwing activist
Register to submit choices

Ballot #77088 : SEE RESULTS

Register to submit comments
You may still vote without registration

show your vote with comment?

smile bank:

similiar ballots:
73657. Why are the dems against Precills Owens for Supreme Court Justice?
136987. How could the U.S Supreme Court get it so wrong
61800. Should there be age limits for Supreme Court Justices?
57337. What happens when Bush stacks the Supreme Court Conservative?
60317. Should their be a mandatroy of retirement age for U.S. supreme court justices?
137337. Supreme Court: Sex offenders can be held indefinitely
43580. Should Supreme Court Justices Be Elected To Limited Terms?
75870. What do you think of the Supreme Court decision today taking away your right to own your own property?
78270. Do you support the nomination of John Roberts to the Supreme Court?
82147. What do you think of Bush's nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court

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.

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.

About Us | Join Us | Privacy Policy | © 2010 All Rights Reserved