Quote:
Originally posted by maximusveritas
Also, conservative justices tend to follow the party line much closer than liberal justices. So to try to portray this as a problem of liberal/Democratic judges is just wrong.
|
Ok, my turn to call you out here. Do you have any proof of that?
Basically conservative judges tend to rule by the LAW as WRITTEN. They don't think in terms of if its a good or bad law, as long as its approved and follows the constitution of the state/fed then its upheld.
A liberal judge rules on how they THINK the law SHOULD be. If they say the law isn't fair, then they feel free to ignore it. This my friends is a form a judicial despotism. Lets look at the Gore thing in Florida, or the Torricelli thing in NJ. In both cases the State (and in Florida's case federal law) were CLEARLY against the Democrat position. In NJ"s case it was crystal clear beyond any doubt. State law said you couldn't be a candidate for senator unless you were already on the ballot after a specific date. The Dems were going to lose the seat, so they tried to get someone else in anyways, and the State Supreme court said 'ok sure, lets ignore the law'. Same thing in Florida (and it was bad enough that the Chief Justice even said in his opinion he KNEW it would be overturned by the Supreme court since the majority position was so obviously flawed). These activists judges MUST be stopped, its not their job to write law.
What the liberals/socialists can’t win at the ballot, they will try to win in the courts, stacked with judges unfit to serve.