Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ilow
I think the bigger point is the "small gov. republicans" asking the federal court to intervene in a state legislation issue. They really do seem insistent on having their cake and eating it too. When it suits them politically they are all for less government interference and regulation, but if an issue arises that they don't agree with it suddenly becomes an important federal issue. They are not called to task enough on this IMHO. If the situation was slightly altered and it was a Democrat admin. asking the judges to intervene in a "conservative" issue" such as concealed weapons or something, in TX, can you imagine the uproar!?
|
It was the conservative judges and ONLY the conservative judges who voted against this.
These are the people we republicans like to see on the bench.
Scalia, a conservative who ruled againt the CA law, did so based solely on past law and precedent.
It was the liberal side of the court who ruled against the law based on whats 'best'.
So while undoubtedly there were republicans who wanted this law struck down on their moral convictions, only the republicans on the court said the law should be upheld.
I'd say the system worked quite well there. Had the court had more like Thomas and less like Ginsberg, you would have had a very different headline yesterday.