Quote:
Originally posted by JamesS
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.
|
I think that our country has no shortage of potential judges that could be approved by a 2/3 or greater majority. Yes, there are particular issues on which you will be judged "extreme" no matter where you stand. But across all issues, there are many people who could be judges that people across political parties would be comfortable having in the judiciary.
Given the availability of such judges with bipartisan support, why fixate on judges that would be approved by a 51-49 vote? We have better alternatives to these controversial figures.
To directly answer your question, I would define an "extreme" judge as one that could not be confirmed by a supermajority (say 60%, or 2/3) of the legislature.