Quote:
Originally Posted by host
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.
|
Ummm, Host, you DO realize that all the Constitutional scholars on the planet can scream "That's Unconstitutional!!!", but if the Supreme Court says "That's Constitutional!", it is, in fact, Constitutional, right?
You talk about "mainstream views of the law". Please explain what you mean by this. It SOUNDS like you mean "mob rule". Say it ain't so.
I can tell that you really don't know dick about the way the judicial system works, and are just parroting talking points. So Sayeth The J.D.
