eponymous wrote:Yes because it is well know that the liberals have no intention of imposing their world view via bench legislation as opposed to a vote of the people or thier elected representatives. Jus sayin'.
I cant argue w/this proposition, only say there really arent any issues liberals can make any headway on in court. The only one any libs have tried this tact with is the 2nd and both the earlier court and the current court have shot them down, repeatedly, from different angles. From what I know, they gave up on it as a party strategy back during the Clinton years. And I wouldnt consider cities trying to do what they can to deal with their violence issues, however ill-conceived, to be evidence of a liberal agenda to usurp the 2nd in court.
LTD, if that is the way you feel, you shouldnt trust a single judge in america to preside without personal prejudice. To say one does and another doesnt is hypocritical and bullshit, they are all human and all have their own experiences, background and prejudices. Further, the right doesnt have a monopoly on 'proper' constitutional interpretation. In fact, this whole notion of 'if it doesnt say it verbatim in the constitution, its not constitutional' is a very young form of jurisprudence, no older than the reagan years. Applying the constitution to the changing conditions of modern times, while preserving the spirit of the document, is the pervasive constitutional jurisprudence throughout history. For my part, I say very few judges, if any, allow personal prejudice to decide cases. I feel they all strive to perform their jobs in good faith, apply the law as accurately and fairly as they can given specific fact scenarios, and this is esp so at the federal appellate level.
And La Raza? Cmon, if any federal appellate judge was openly supportive of any outfit as radical as La Raza, no matter what their political stripe or cause, ethical charges would have been filed long ago and the judge potentially unseated. Judges go WAY out of their way to avoid the appearance of ANY impropriety of this type, even with mainstream advocacy groups, and this is esp so at a ct as visible as the 2nd circuit. Moreover, I havent heard word one about this at her hearings. If this claim had ANY merit, sessions and co. would be all over it. You got to stop reading nutjob blogs.