View Single Post
Old 10-19-2004, 11:42 PM   #27 (permalink)
host
Banned
 
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.
host is offline  
 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360