|
drown_with_me, its well and good to say that you don't support extreme judges. The question is how do you define extreme.
Some feel that strict constructionism is the way judges were meant to view the Constitution (and that therefore judicial activism of any sort would be extreme) while others feel it is the duty of judges to interpret and adapt the word of the Constitution to fit today's society.
Each party would consider the other extreme, and their viewpoint to be the reasonable one. And each would have ample precedent to back up their position.
On a more contemporary note, take abortion. If you are pro-abortion, how would you feel if Roe v. Wade was in some way judicially nullified? (Say the balance of the supreme court changes.) If you are anti-abortion, how do you feel that five justices merely sitting on a court allow (in your view) the wholesale murder of fetuses?
Each are within the power of the courts, and each can be considered extreme depending on your viewpoint.
You see the ambiguity of your, still very valid, message.
__________________
The tragedy of life is what dies inside a man while he lives.
-- Albert Schweitzer
|