<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META content="MSHTML 5.00.2919.6307" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY bottomMargin=0 leftMargin=3 rightMargin=3 topMargin=0>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV>Lance, there are many things that, in my mind, just don't compute about the
"liberal Supreme Court judges" line of argument.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>To start with, there is no justice on the court now that I don't sometimes
appreciate, and sometimes deplore. For example, Scalia and Thomas were stalwarts
of the <EM>Apprendi</EM> opinion, which basically said, nobody can have their
sentence increased by a judge based on facts that have not been submitted to a
jury. Breyer wrote a horrible dissent about what is reasonable for the efficient
administration of justice -- which Scalia skewered nicely by pointing out that
the Framers of our constitution weren't always interested in efficient
administration, and trusted juries more than judges. John Paul Stevens wrote a
terrible dissent in <EM>Boy Scouts of America v. Dale</EM>, the one about the
homosexual assistant scout master; he pored over whether and how condemnation of
homosexuality was part of the Boy Scouts' "expressive message," when the whole
point of the majority opinion was, its none of the government's business,
including the courts, the Boy Scouts have a right to freedom of association,
which includes defining what you want your "expressive message" to be.
Period.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Don't forget that Stevens was appointed by a Republican conservative
president. Don't forget that Earl Warren was appointed by President Eisenhower,
at the insistence of Richard Nixon. That's the next point: presidents are ALWAYS
surprised by how their appointees turn out. That is as it should be -- the court
is a co-equal branch of government, not a subordinate department.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>For what its worth, you might also take consolation that the next few
judges likely to die or retire are generally among those considered "liberals"
... Stevens, Ginsburg ... so Obama won't likely be appointing anyone to replace
Thomas, Alito, Roberts, or Scalia, although maybe Anthony Kennedy will retire.
So nothing is going to tip radically anyway.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>But the bottom line to me is, most of the complaints about the court come
from people in legislative or executive branches of government who want some
power that the court denies them. That is part of the court's job. As Hamilton
and Madison wrote in the <EM>Federalist Papers</EM> (I always rely on
conservative sources for questions like this), if congress or a legislature
passes a law it has no constitutional authority to pass, then that law is null
and void, and it is the role of the judiciary to declare it so. That's not a
power to create law, but it is a power to refuse to enforce or apply a law that
is unconstitutional. Its an important function to preserve the liberties of
individual citizens.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Siarlys</DIV>
<DIV></DIV></BODY></HTML>
<font face="Times-New-Roman" size="2"><br><br>
____________________________________________________________<br>
<a href="http://offers.juno.com/TGL1142/?u=http://www.ftd.com/17007">Save $15 on Flowers and Gifts from FTD!<br>Shop now at www.ftd.com/17007</a><br></font>