Kerry is a former prosecutor. Bush, who answered a question during one of the debates, about his criteria for judicial appointments to the federal bench or to the supreme court, by saying that he will appoint judges who adhere to the constitution in determining how to interpret the law, when, ironically, he was appointed to the office of POTUS by 5 Supreme Court justices, several of who were appointed by his father and by Reagan, via a controversial, and unsigned opinion, that constitutional scholars opine, was not constitutional! Kerry has the court room and criminal law experience to appoint judges with mainstream views on the law, the constitution, and how the two mesh fairly with the best interest of the collective U.S. society. Bush has a view steeped in hypocricy; one judiciary that bends for his interests, and a very conservative, Christian fundamentalist, anachronistic, and respressive judiciary which he intends to slant as described above, via his future apointments to the bench. Women, the environment, and
the consumer will see their interests and rights defended by Kerry judicial
appointees, and set back, possibly drastically if Bush is elected.
Quote:
In Court Clerks' Breach, a Provocative Precedent
By Charles Lane
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, October 17, 2004; Page D01
The inscription on the front of the Supreme Court building says "Equal Justice Under Law," but the court's motto could just as easily be "What Happens Here, Stays Here." In a town where confidential information travels fast, the justices protect their internal deliberations fiercely -- and, usually, successfully.
But in the October issue of Vanity Fair magazine, former Supreme Court law clerks from the court's 2000-01 term speak out -- under cover of anonymity -- about what they saw behind the scenes during the fateful case of Bush v. Gore.
That case, decided by a 5-4 vote, ended the contentious recount in Florida, thereby giving the presidency to George W. Bush.
Writers David Margolick, Evgenia Peretz and Michael Shnayerson recount the views of former clerks to liberal justices who opposed the ruling. Those clerks contend that the decision was a rank exercise in partisanship by conservative Republican justices. <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A38758-2004Oct16.html">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A38758-2004Oct16.html</a>
(If you don't have a user name and password for the Wash.Post, copy and past the link into the google search box, do the search and click on the result.
|