Re: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] [POLITICS] what next?

[Mike Miller <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

On Wed, 30 Nov 2005, Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote:

> Fortunately (from my point of view) the current right wing 
> administration is seeking to reverse this trend by appointing 
> constructivist, non-activist judges.  It is not at all obvious whether 
> they will succeed, but I hope that they do.

If Scalia is a strict constructionist, then why did he vote against 
allowing Florida courts to make their own decision in Gore v Bush in 2000? 
Why would he vote to allow the federal government to overrule state 
medical marijuana laws?  Scalia is the most activist of all the judges on 
the bench, but he's a *conservative* activist.  What your pal in the White 
House wants is not a constructivist, it's another conservative activist. 
All the talk about constructivism is a smoke screen.  We all want judges 
who will vote our way.

Here's more on Scalia's activism:

http://www.reason.com/0510/co.cy.antonin.shtml

I'm sure there are many articles on the topic on the 'net.  That's just 
the first one I found.

Mike

_______________________________________________
discussion mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion