Third Party & Independents Archives

David,

extremists should be screened and filtered from ever becoming Supreme Court justices;

I agree. That’s why no liberal should ever be confirmed for the Supreme Court ever again.

I agree with you, I will admit I was not very surprised that the nomination was changed to make John Roberts the Chief Justice though I could have easily seen one of the other justices promoted as a scenario.

I still feel that while he is of course a conservative he will make a good Chief Justice. Everything I have read about him gives me the impression that he is most concerned about ruling from a constitutional standpoint so the chance of him ever becoming an “activist” justice is very slim.

Did Eric just call half the country extremists?

Aye carumba

Lawnboy, he is a minority with rights too!

I know he has the right, but there’s a big difference between having the right to do something and doing something right.

Lisa, there is no meaning to the term “activist judge”. Either all Justices are activist or none are. They all do the same thing. They interpret the Constitution to meet contemporary challenges to the vision of the Constitution. The Constitution was written deliberately vague on a huge range of issues, spelling on concretely only the barest of skeletons of checks and balances, can and can’t do items. The drafters knew from their own rapidly changing times, technologies, innovations and social upheavals, that the future was not theirs to see and anticipate except for their understanding of human nature and the nature of power.

Thus, the Constitution was not written to meet all of the future’s challenges without interpretation and new meaning breathed into it by future jurists of their day with their own sets of challenges and needs for insuring the ideals and vision of a more perfect union. Thus it was expected that future jurists would interpret the Constitution according to contemporaneous times. If that is activism, then all justices have been activist. If it is not activism, then no justices have been activist.

Judicial activism is used an accusation by both parties and to their own propagandistic needs. It really is a meaningless term except in the most strictest application where a ruling would contradict the inherent structure or concrete and specific dictates already set out in the Constitution. Such changes are to be brought forward only by Amendment, not judicial interpretation, and to date, I have seen little evidence of justices past or present trying be activist in this strict definition.

Lawnboy, when I see eric strut his stuff, I am always reminded of the fact that the 20th century which saw the rise of America to preemeninent greatness and social equality and prosperity, it was largely under the auspices of liberals, thus nullifying eric’s rants entirely.

I see an activist judge as one who rules not from the constitution but one that lets emotion or political influence determine a decision.

This has happened in several cases on both ends of the spectrum. I don’t believe John Roberts would be one of those who would do that.

That was one of the concerns some have expressed about John Roberts the fear that he was going to be an “activist” rather than a justice.

That’s were my comment stemmed from.

LawnBoy,

Did Eric just call half the country extremists?

At best liberals comprise a third of America.

Another assumption is that extremists should be screened and filtered from ever becoming Supreme Court justices; otherwise, the advice and consent of the Senate has no reason for being written into the Constitution. Democrats want to insure their vote does not send a conservative extremist to the highest bench in the land.

Are there any other kind of extremists?

David,

He said he will be open minded and mindful of the arguments of fellow justices and the cases presented. If Judge Roberts can remain true to his words today, it appears to this writer that Judge Roberts should be confirmed.

But we know that there are extremist views being withheld in the official writings and memos of Judge Roberts!

Thanks for second half of the last sentence though, it’s very unextremist of you.

David,

Lawnboy, when I see eric strut his stuff, I am always reminded of the fact that the 20th century which saw the rise of America to preemeninent greatness and social equality and prosperity, it was largely under the auspices of liberals, thus nullifying eric’s rants entirely.

Since all this capitalist prosperity came under the auspices of liberals I’m confused about why they would want to replace it.

David,
Having also listend most over the hearings today myself, I am surprised at how well both sides acted. And while I know there is a week of questions to be asked and answered in public, I do not see Mr. Roberts having any problems being conformed. Yet, I could not help compose a few questions of mine own that I would like see him asked and answered.

So here is my questions to Mr. Roberts and Congress. Mr. Roberts, the Declaration of Independence clearly states that America holds this Truths to be Self-Evident that each man is created equal and endowed by their “Creator with certain unalienable Rights, among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. It goes on to say that government must work to build a nation based on the Ideology found in The Laws of Nature and Nature’s God. And at any time a government does not follow that path the citizens have the duty and right to alter their government. Since this is the foundation which America declared its freedom from England. I would like to know your interpretation of what this means to how the Laws of the Land are to be administrated.

Additionally, what guidelines do you use to judge the right & wrong of a legal case? Does the Court of The Land have to just answer the question placed in front of the Bench or does the Justices have the authority to tell the Lawyers bringing their legal questions forward to go back and ask the Superior Questions of their case which will allow the Supreme Court to make a judgment based on the Good of the Nation and Society? Case in pint, in 2000’s Presidential Election the Supreme Court was limited to answer the question “Should the vote counting in Florida be stopped?” Yet, would it not have served the American Public and thus Justice of the Law if the Democrat & Republican Lawyers would have been made to ask if the 2000 Presidential Election in the state of Florida was constitutional? By holding the political lawyers feet to the ethical and moral standard of what is in the inherent best interest for all Americans, would not the Supreme Court being doing it’s job by upholding The Constitution of America?

Tough questions to answer, but I do believe that as Chef Justice of The Supreme Court he should weigh in on them up to the point where Judicial Purdence will allow. I’m just glad that he is not another Judge Borg. While self-beliefs are important the Unalienable Righteous of Law is paramount to the survivial of our way of life.

Lisa,

I see an activist judge as one who rules not from the constitution but one that lets emotion or political influence determine a decision.

That depends if you are speaking in the realm of a strict or loose Constitutional interpretation.

The truth is that you seem to see things that a loose interpretor would be an activist judge: I cite Roe vs Wade for example.

You seem to believe that the only non-activist judge is a strict interpretor. Well, you have to develop the time frames to make sure you don’t come across as stupid (not saying that you are, as you are stating your case in an eloquent manner.) Remember, if we are to be strict interpretors of the Constitution, only white men with property could vote.

The Constitution, as I see it, was a White Supremacist document. It wasn’t radically White Supremacist, but it had its elements in it.

If you believe in the Constitution to be only interpreted strictly (as I see with an activist judge would let his emotions go, in a loose intrepretation), you may as well push for retraction of atleast 150 years of legislation, if not more.

Throughout history, we have had leaders whom have been unconstitutional, even in the executive branch. Even President Lincoln and, in the political and strategic view point; I agree, temporarily suspended the Writ of Habeous Corpus. That was unconstitutional. Was Lincoln being an activist? In your definition, I believe so. Do you really believe it? I don’t think you do, but I do feel you aren’t analyzing the consequences of what you are advocating.

I don’t believe the real dangers are in the Judicial Branch however. It seems to me to be vastly overstated. Not everything in those Constitutional regards are linked directly to it.

I see the problem happening more with the Executive Branch. In truth, particularly after the American Civil War; the Executive branch and the Federal Government have only obtained more power. It is happening under the Bush Administration as well.

These are a few variables for you to consider. Politics, when speaking on how the system should be ran, is never easy. You have a strong point, but a little bit of both: strict and loose interpretations have to be in place. As David said, with logistics, it cancels activism out.

At best liberals comprise a third of America.

That’s hardly better. You’re still calling 100 millions fellow Americans extremists unsuitable for being on the Supreme Court.

Then again, if you mean anyone more liberal than you is an extremist, then we’re probably talking 250 million or more.

I really hope that you would consider yourself ineligible by this standard.

Democrats want to insure their vote does not send a conservative extremist to the highest bench in the land.

Are there any other kind of extremists?

I would guess that David meant that the converse is also true.

I think we must have activist judges on both sides. If we had only moderates on the supreme court what a sorry state of affairs we would see. Muddled down decisions with little to no lasting impact on our future. Think for a moment if we had a room full of moderates when Brown v Board of Education was presented. Would we have had the decision from the Activist Warren court? I think not. More likely, we would have had an affirmation of Plessy v Ferguson that separate but equal was the “law of the land” or Stare Decisis, and they would have moved on. Even during the Plessy decision, the lone dissenter, Justice Harlan, said that the Constitution is color blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens. In respect of civil rights, all citizens are equal before the law…

Harlan was the lone dissenter, and by no means a liberal or extremist justice by today’s standards. However, in the 1890’s, this dissent was considered radical. If he had held a strict constructionist view of the consitution, then he would not have said that all citizens are equal before the law, when it most certainly says that other persons would be considered three-fifths of a person with respect to the census.

Extremism and activism are terms based on our views today. In the future, we may not necessarily consider a decision made today as extreme. When Roe v. Wade was decided, I believe more Americans len thought it an extreme decision than do now.

Robust interpretation of the Consitution is healthly. It is something that I believe keeps our consitution alive and progressing. Whether conservative or liberal, we need to have the ends of the spectrum pushing hard against the middle to obtain progress.

Republican Senators implied or directly implored Judge Roberts to not reveal anything about his beliefs or judicial temperament

David, I saw that too, and thought it was totally bizarre. One of the Republican Senators said answering questions was a trap, so don’t do it. That’s crazy.

I want to know what kind of Chief Justice we’re getting. I don’t understand why we all wouldn’t want to know. Why would GOP Senators tell Roberts not to answer any questions?

Dennis,
>em>I think we must have activist judges on both sides. No, I have to respecyfully disagree. Although a Judge has the right to his personal beliefs, the job he/she takes requires them to look outside themselve and seek that which is or will be known to be unalienable right redgardless based on the question(s) before the Bench. Now, we may all have different views on how the truth should be sought; however, unless All Knowledge & Logic meet All Space & Time their view is based on belief not facts that have been proven.

For this very reason, The Founding Fathers placed 7 Judges (9 after FDR)to the Supreme Court. In this manner, they thought justice would not lay at the feet of one Human’s view of the Law, but together these Citizens could come together and debate among themselve to seek exactly whae is unalienable right regardless by the Constitution of The United States of America.

I guess problem one would be I don’t see the Contitution as a White Supremcy document. It was not a perfect document but reflected the time it was written. That is what Amendments are for, not Judges. If there is something that is unfair or discriminatory or needs to be changed given the way America has changed since those early days that is exactly why there was a format created to do so.

I do not see the Judicial branch as the one who is a major problem either though. It is the executive and the legislative branches that cause the majority of the balance of power issues that to me should be more of an issue.

Nor do I buy into the whole Roe V Wade crisis. If it is at one point declared unconstitutional (which is still unlikely) what will happen is some states will try to make abortion illegal. Another case will come forward that will replace Roe V Wade and again attempt to establish the freedom of choice for women related to abortion. Many legal scholars have stated Roe V Wade is a poor case and has some questionable parts. In the end it is entirely possible rather than abortion becoming illegal that a more defined case could be ruled that would end this as a discussion.

My two cents worth.

Lisa,
In the matter of Roe vs. Wade, I wonder if those who support pro-life would also support a Bill that called for all Males over the age of 10 be subject to a Vasectomy? By supporting this Law, abortion becomes mute since no male should shoot real bullets, but only when married and after both parties agree to having a child would the process be reversed just for that purpose.

Want to bet most Moms and Dads would obey that law? Even those who believe in Pro-Life wouldn’t comply, yet it would settle the argument.

Dennis,
>em>I think we must have activist judges on both sides. No, I have to respecyfully disagree. Although a Judge has the right to his personal beliefs, the job he/she takes requires them to look outside themselve and seek that which is or will be known to be unalienable right redgardless based on the question(s) before the Bench. Now, we may all have different views on how the truth should be sought; however, unless All Knowledge & Logic meet All Space & Time their view is based on belief not facts that have been proven.

For this very reason, The Founding Fathers placed 7 Judges (9 after FDR)to the Supreme Court. In this manner, they thought justice would not lay at the feet of one Human?s view of the Law, but together these Citizens could come together and debate among themselve to seek exactly whae is unalienable right regardless by the Constitution of The United States of America.

_____________________________________

Henry, I’m in agreement that one person’s voice shouldn’t rule the day in a decision. I agree with the idea that the court doesn’t decide an opinion based solely on the views of one single justice. I believe the fact that there are nine justices who voice there opinions on a matter is the safety net that can halt extremism at the door. I do believe however, that there is also the opinion of the day that colors a person’s views. I simply can’t believe that a justice could be totally objective on a case. At some point they have a belief system that influences their opinions. Most of them will, quite rightly govern their personal beliefs with precedent, including original language in the constitution, but at some point in time, when they are weighing a case, I believe their personal views have a degree of influence on what they say. Justice Blackmun, a conservative justice when appointed, changed his views over time and they influenced his opinions. Read his dissent regarding the death penalty in Callins v. Collins where he said “From this day forward, I shall no longer tinker with the machinery of death”. A death penalty proponent for almost twenty years, he eventually came to the opinion that the government should not be in this business. Now, his opinion was a dissent. It has not changed the way the death penalty is governed in the country yet. Some time in the future however, someone may use this dissent to support an argument against the death penalty and be in the majority opinion. This is the way the scales are balanced in my view. People aren’t machines, and their conscience, education and environment influence how they think. Do we want this to be the sole rule in the proceedings of the Court? No, I don’t think so. However, it is not reasonable to me to believe that justices aren’t influenced by their personal experiences. I believe we should be careful with respect to appointing justices whose views are so extreme they are totally foreign to society. But those people are rare indeed.

Lisa:
“Nor do I buy into the whole Roe V Wade crisis. If it is at one point declared unconstitutional (which is still unlikely) what will happen is some states will try to make abortion illegal.”

Right. And some, like my state of California, will always keep it legal. This is why if they ever overturn Roe v Wade in the Supreme Court, women who live all over the country who believe women should have the right to determine what they want to do with their own bodies, will simply have to organize bus trips to the legal states for women who want a clean, medically safe abortion but who live where it has been outlawed.
Conservative “Activist” Judges may be intent on throwing up roadblocks to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness for women, but we’ll always find a way around them — by creating a new Underground Railroad for the 21st Century! :^)

“Another case will come forward that will replace Roe V Wade and again attempt to establish the freedom of choice for women related to abortion.”

But if the Court is stacked with Anti-Abortion Judges they could refuse to hear the case.

“Many legal scholars have stated Roe V Wade is a poor case and has some questionable parts.”

Despite the fact that RvW has been in place for thirty years, I think the questionable part has always been that some people don’t approve of abortion and are intent on controlling those who think it is sometimes a necessity — and want to keep it clean and medically safe so that women don’t have to die needlessly, or be forced into mandatory motherhood against their will.

Dennis,
I could not agree with you more about keeping Extremist or Activist Judges off The Benches of our courts, I do have to respectfully disagree with you on your view between what one believes and that what they come to know to be Unalienable Right Regardless in The Laws of Man & Nature.

As a Layman student of the Cardinal Knowledge of Law, I have many times had to rethink my beliefs against that what I know to be unalienable Right regardless under The Laws of Nautre; The Intent of the Laws of the Land; And The Natural Course of Human Events. The funny thing is the more I learn and understand the Righteousness found in the Laws using the Civil and Constitution Right to use these knowledge as a Layman, the more I come to terms with what is spoken in The Books of Religion. While I could sight many examples found in Human Nature that back up this claim, like Judges, judisprudence and/or the threat of Grandma’s around the world keeps me from exposing them.

Adrienne, I’m not an attorney, but I’ve read several op ed pieces by legal scholars that have pointed out weak areas in Roe V Wade from a constitutional law standpoint.

Of course there will always be attempts to “stack” the court, however at times those who have been selected have not ended up doing as expected.

I do agree with you that there will always be some states that allow abortion, so those who are pro-life will never despite their attempts make abortion illegal in the US. I still believe that prevention should be the larger issue and that if all of the money spent on both sides fighting each other was used to actually prevent unwanted pregnancies in the first place abortion could become very rare. But then we both realize that will probably never happen, that’s one of my more idealistic hopes.

That said though I’d also wish that abortion became less of a litmus test for judges that the areas of concern would be based on overall performance ones such as knowledge and training, experience and the ability to demonstrate rational not emotional rulings.

Henry, that would never happen because it would place the responsibility solely on males. If men were more responsible as to where they allowed their sperm to go? It would be the same as if women practiced prevention. I told my son as he became a man to ask himself the question before he thought about having sex with someone. “Is this someone you would actually want to have a child with?” If the answer was no? He might want to think about keeping “mr happy” in his pants. I’ve done basically same with my daughters as they have become adults, because even with the most stringent birth control methods? Only one is 100% effective and that is? Don’t do it. Personal responsibility is something that many don’t grasp since the majority of unwanted pregnancies in the US are not resulting from virgin births. The other sad reality is the majority of abortions do not stem from failed birth control, they result from no birth control being used.

Lisa,
My dad told me the same thing. However, the reason I stated the idea of mandatory vasectomy for all males is to bring out the point of Equal Rights under The Law. If the State or Federal Government has the Right to control the reproductive of a women, would they also not have the Right to control the reproductive system of a male?

While I personally do not like abortions, like you and many Americans, I think that we as a society can do more to prevent this from happening. One of the best things on the market today that I see which would have a direct effect on this issue is to hand out (i’m sorry if I say this wrong) conception tests which will tell women when they are most likely to get pregnent. However, like condems, I would bet that Pro-life groups would have a problem with that too.

By the way did you like Judge Roberts remarks so far. I still have some reservations; however, I do believe he has the knowledge and understanding of his role as Cheif Justice.

Lisa:

“I still believe that prevention should be the larger issue and that if all of the money spent on both sides fighting each other was used to actually prevent unwanted pregnancies in the first place abortion could become very rare. But then we both realize that will probably never happen, that�s one of my more idealistic hopes.”

While I agree that way more money should be spent education and prevention (Hey, we can agree on something! ;^), I also know that even careful and responsible couples can sometimes accidentally end up pregnant, which is why I feel that the personally chosen option of having a clean and safe abortion should always remain available.

“That said though I�d also wish that abortion became less of a litmus test for judges that the areas of concern would be based on overall performance ones such as knowledge and training, experience and the ability to demonstrate rational not emotional rulings.”

Yeah, I know what you mean. Though keeping abortion legal is an important issue for me, I find myself more worried about other aspects of Robert’s becoming Chief Justice — such as his views on church-states issues, corporate issues, civil rights and environmental issues.

Also, we have to remember that Robert’s is going to have a lot of power. His duties as Chief will include deciding which of the justices should draft decisions, setting the agenda as to which cases the court will consider, leading the judicial conferences (which issues ethics guidelines for federal judges), and who will run justice conferences. He will also choose members for the foreign intelligence surveillance court (which decides whether and how the government will conduct secret national security surveillance), as well as preside over impeachment trials.

I have to say that it bothers me that Attorney General Gonzales is refusing to discuss the request that was made last week by the Democratic judiciary committee to look at sixteen of the Supreme Court cases Roberts personally handled when he worked for Ken Starr (then solicitor general) during Bush Sr.’s administration — especially since similar documents were available to the committee during Rehnquist’s confirmation hearings for Chief back in 1986.
This kind of secretiveness seems very ominous and implies that they believe that Roberts has got a lot to hide.

Henry, I still have reservations as well, however over all I think given we have a Republican President and a majorty Republican in Congress that we could have ended up with a far worse candidate than John Roberts. From a law ability and experience with the Supreme Court issue alone I do not think we could find a better candidate.

His age concerns me because to be perfectly frank he will have a very long impact on the courts. While I would not want a candidate close to his or her death bed I’d be less than honest if I didn’t say that is a concern. Especially since we really have no way of knowing what kind of a Chief Justice he will be. He could remain to slightly lean to the right, he could become more extreme to the right, he could go to the left. History has shown we can’t always predict this. So a term of over 40 years being possible is very important long term effect on the Supreme Court.

Adrienne, yes it looks like this is something we agree on. I personally could never have an abortion however, I believe it should remain a choice and safe as well as legal. I’d prefer a much more concerted effort on prevention rather than just focusing on abstaining since I think we all realize abstaining should be encouraged but pretending telling people “Just say no” doesn’t appear to be effective.

As a Catholic I realize my church’s stance and while I agree with it on a personal basis, I do not believe it is my right as a Catholic to tell others that they must follow the moral codes of the church. One of the many reasons I cannot support political activism by the Church on the abortion issue. I don’t feel it’s our place. I realize the Vatican seems to disagree with me on this point. The Vatican also does not agree with birth control. I’ve decided I’ll take my chances and if God has an issue with my decisions? I’ll deal with it as I have some questions for him as well.

Abortion is on the decline last stats I read, and if we continue to make prevention the focus? Hopefully that will continue. That to me is the ideal situation, realizing as we both do that there will always be birth control failures, however if we could limit abortion to just those instances or when the life of the mother or rape was involved? That would be a huge accomplishment.

AP-

Wouldn’t the trap be that there would be cries for Roberts to recuse himself when any related case came before the court? Afterall, even the Democrats know at this stage his nomination is a done deal. Their only hope is to reduce the number of conservative votes on future issues.

Abortion is on the decline last stats I read, and if we continue to make prevention the focus? Hopefully that will continue. That to me is the ideal situation, realizing as we both do that there will always be birth control failures, however if we could limit abortion to just those instances or when the life of the mother or rape was involved? That would be a huge accomplishment.

__________
Lisa, some data:

From the CDC:
The abortion ratio, defined as the number of abortions per 1,000 live births, was 246 in 2000 (for the same 48 reporting areas as 1999), compared with 256 reported for 1999. This represents a 3.8% decline in the abortion ratio. The abortion rate (for the same 48 reporting areas as 1999) was 16 per 1,000 women aged 15—44 years for 2000. This was also a 3.8% decrease from the rate reported for procedures performed during 1997—1999 for the same 48 reporting areas.

That’s only through the year 2000 however. Some reports I’m reading indicate a very slight increase in the Abortion rate since 2000.

However, I think if you were correct on the point of keeping abortion safe and legal. I’d repeat president Clinton’s mantra that it should be safe, legal and rare. Contrary to some, I don’t believe people are cavalier about abortions. It is a moment in any women’s life that I’m sure they would just as soon not go through.

I don’t think you should get into restrictions however.

I believe the issue goes back to privacy and the right of a women to determine what happens to her body. When you outlaw abortion except in the case of rape or incest or other circumstances, you immediately make this issue not about the woman and about the fetus. If you allow abortion only in the case of rape or incest or other circumstances, then the fetus in those case is not protected either. In any situation is is a beastly business and our goal should be to reduce the number to the absolute minimum necessary.

So, I think you have to keep this between the woman and her doctor and focus on prevention. It seems as we have better education on the matter, that abortions over time have decreased (the long view). I hope and pray this is due to a combination of educaiton, abstinence AND an effective use of birth control.

However, back to the judicial side of the matter, I believe this has to be considered on the matter of privacy for individuals and their right to make decisions regarding their health.

We won’t stop abortions if we make them illegal. We can diminish abortions if we focus our energies on education and pregnancy prevention.

Dennis, I don’t want restrictions, I was merely commenting it would be a much better situation if abortion was not necessary because better birth control was not only available but used. I realize even if birth control never failed, there would still be some situations where abortion would be considered.

I had to go back and check, it was information from the The Guttmacher Institute I saw that was more recent that stated:

the number of abortions decreased nationwide ? by 0.8% in 2001 and by another 0.8% in 2002. The abortion rate , which is the number of women having abortions relative to the total population, also decreased 1% in 2001 and 0.9% in 2002. That’s not as rapid a decrease as had been seen in earlier years, but it is a decrease nonetheless.

Roe vs. Wade is already living on borrowed time, but as others have pointed out it’s a mistake to think that Roe vs. Wade is synonomous with the ability to get an abortion.

It’s not that difficult to understand why it’s on such shaky ground—it uses the Consitution to assure something not mentioned in the Constitution based upon a right to privacy which is also not explicity granted in the Consitution (though it’s recognized by generations of findings, and is something that has to be weighed against other rights, which Roe vs Wade fails to do).

Roe vs. Wade s a very round about ruling with holes a mile wide.

I happen to think the right to privacy is based on a good reading of the Constitution and that it should be protected. But there are limits.

Nobody would say that a right to privacy means that people should be allowed to build a nuclear bomb in their garage.

Nobody would say that the right to privacy gives people the right to molest children in the privacy of their own homes. And that’s because children have rights that have to be weighed against somebody else’s rights.

Introduce this right—the right of children not to be chopped into bits and sucked out of their mother’s wombs with a vacuum cleaner—and watch the reasoning behind Roe vs. Wade crumble.

I don’t expect Roe vs. Wade to be overturned in the near future. Definitely not before Chief Justice John Roberts swears in President Rudolph Guliani. But it will happen eventually. If not during Guliani’s administration, then perhaps during Jeb Bush’s.

sanger, abortion will always be a legal right of women in this country, live with it. It was illegal once across this land and the horrors that resulted, forced its legality. The Constitution also does not acknowlege fetuses as citizens, only those born here or naturalized. According to your own strict interpretation, a fetus has no legal standing under the Constitution whereas women do.

As for rights to privacy, you’re right, even Roberts said today he acknowledges rights to privacy as intepreted from the Constitution. So, it is a matter of interpretation. And who is to say what degree of interpretation is too far? The nine justices. Stare Decisis being as important a hurdle as it should be, it is safe to say no one’s crystal ball is better than anyone else’s as to whether a future court will overturn RvW.

This country’s pendulum of public leanings from left to right and back again is pretty clearly delineated. Given the current backlash in the polls against Republicans and Bush, I give your crystal ball vision of our nation moving further to the right, about a 45% chance. It was significantly higher in Nov. of 2004, but events being what they are in Iraq, Katrina, 9/11, and the deficits, debt, and now a trade deficit in technology thought to be America’s globalization stronghold, I see a shift back to the center coming.

I had the opportunity to watch some of the confirmation hearing for John Roberts yesterday.

My impression is that he is a very sharp individual of high integrity. I found some of the questions posed by the Democrats on the panel to be unreasonable in that they were posing questions in such a way that was more solicitous of wanting a ruling than an answer as to Judge Roberts’ leanings or inclinations.

The likes of Kennedy questioning the integrity of anyone is laughable.

After watching Biden? Again…think Kennedy pales in comparison to using the confirmation hearing for showboating rather than seeking actual information.

Biden’s running for president. So, it’s all theater. At the end of the day, I be he votes to confirm.

I’d like to see the tables turned and have these senators have to go through confirmation hearings annually to evaluate and keep their jobs. I recognize we have elections, but jeez, it only happens every six years with these guys.

Wouldn’t it be fun to see a peer review of each of these sentators and have someone ask them about their voting records?

I have to write annual performance reviews for several of my employees and have one myself. It seems fitting that as our employees, the senators should do the same.