Federal Judges in 2005: Rights Concerns

[Neil D]

[:"blue"] Growing evidence that the freedoms of the US are being subverted by neo-conservatives. Below is the pro-arguement to the hypothesis. [/]

by Terry Gross

Fresh Air from WHYY, February 15, 2005 · Ralph Neas is president of People for the American Way, a national social justice organization. He was executive director of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights when he led the successful effort to block the nomination of Robert Bork to the U.S. Supreme Court in 1987.

Our conversation with Neas is the first of a two-part look at the upcoming battle over judicial nominees. On Wednesday we hear from C. Boyden Gray, founder of the conservative group the Committee for Justice.

Feb 15, 2005

[:"green"] Here is the audio con-arguement for the same issue. Please note that this audio file is not available until much later today Feb. 16, 2005 [/]

Federal Judges in 2005: Conservative View

Boyden Gray is the chairman and founder of the group Committee for Justice, formed to promote conservative judicial nominees. Gray was instrumental in getting Clarence Thomas appointed to the Supreme Court. Wednesday, we heard from Ralph Neas of the liberal group People for the American Way.

[Dr. Shane]

Ralph Neas - can anyone say "radical left wing"?

[Neil D]

The current laws that Ralph Neas was citing were bipartisan efforts that are currently under attack and are concidered currently a right under the current interpretation of the courts. This is to be pushed back by neo-conservatives from the Federalist Society, which is where the nominees for appellate courts and Supreme Court apointees. Recently, Bush renonimated 20 rejected nominees to the federal courts. This after over 200 nominees were approved by the legislative branch. The democrates rejected these 20 as the WORST nominees.... Now, we see these neo-concervatives to reinterprete the Consititution, back to a 1920s interpretation, that limited the rights of the common man, and opposing the current legislation of liberal social issues, like social security, which had been struck down by the conservative courts of EGW's time.

Congratulations to the Republican party who overwhelming views are limiting the freedom's of the common man...

[Dr. Shane]

the 20 nominees were not rejected. they were never allowed to go to the senate floor for a vote. oops, I am confusing anyone with the facts <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />

[Neil D]

Oh...you are correct. I mistated it. They never went to the sentate floor for a vote, because they were judged as too extreme....which is something I did say....

[Dr. Shane]

Do you know why they are judged as extreame by partisan Democrats? Because they belive in interpreting the Constitution by original intent. That means they try to determine what the original intent of those who either signed the Constitution originally or supported the passage of ammmendments later added to it was. The other "extreame", if you want to call it that, is judicial activism which views the Constitution as a "living document" which can change meaning as time goes on.

To be fair I don't like to call either side "extreame". There are simply two ways to interpret the Consitution. One is by "original intent" and the other is seeing it as a "living document". I favor original intent. I see the living document as quite scary becuase it allows unelected judges to make law as opposed to interpreting law. An activist judge with the "living document" mindset could look at the Constition and simple declare that freedom of religion really doesn't protect Muslems since Muslems threaten national security. Never mind that the original intent of the founders was to protect freedom of religion for all Americans. Activist judges can do what they want and the only way to over rule them is by means of a Constitutional Ammendment.

[Neil D]

Quote:

---

Because they belive in interpreting the Constitution by original intent. That means they try to determine what the original intent of those who either signed the Constitution originally or supported the passage of ammmendments later added to it was. The other "extreame", if you want to call it that, is judicial activism which views the Constitution as a "living document" which can change meaning as time goes on.

---

So, let me get this straight....A judge who views the constitution with "origional intent" can strike down any amendment, ie the sufferage amendmnet because the orgional intent of the constitution was for MEN to have life liberty and the persuit of happiness. Therefore, the origional intent of the constitution was for men only, not women...

Seems to me that even if we KEEP PLACING an amendment to the constitution, any judge like Bork, could strike it down because the origional intent of the constitution was for men only....

Nah, I don't think so, Shane...

Bush has had more judges appointed on to the court than other preceding president. These 20 that didn't make it to the senate were judged as too extreem than the other 200+. And yes, they would have been like Bork, thinking women were not of worth ....

[Dr. Shane]

I am starting to think that you never took a high school civics or a college government class. My post seems to have goone right over your head, Brother Neil. Let me see if I can break it down and make it easier to understand.

Original intent means the judge tries to determine the original intent of the Constition or those that supported ammendments to it. For example the Supreme Court ruled that the "equal protection" clause in the 14th Ammendment made all the states subject the Bill of Rights. Before that ruling individual states could abridge freedom of speech or conduct searches and seizures without a warrant. The Bill of Rights only applied to the federal government.

Now take a moment and read through the 14th Ammendment. Does anyone actually believe that those who ratified the Ammendment intended for it to subject all the states to the Bill of Rights? Of course not. 2/3 of the states wouldn't have ratified it. It was passed to give equal rights to blacks. It was not about making states subject to the Bill of Rights. However when there is an activist Court, the Constitution means whatever they say it means. What the founders or those who passed ammendments meant doesn't need to be considered.