In his record we find that he belives, argues for, or has ruled in favor of:
- denying the US government has the ability to restrict the sale of machine guns
- forcing women choosing to have an abortion to first get the consent of the biological father, even in cases of abusive relationships.
- denying that the US government can create a law protecting workers' right to medical/family leave.
- the strip search of a 10 year old girl who was not named in any search warrant.
- doing away with the americans with disabilities act.
- allowing employers to legally fire AIDS victims because of a 'fear of contagion whether reasonable or not'.
The battle cry from the right is that they don't want Judicial activism. they don't want judges to legislate from the bench. in other words, they don't want judges to meddle with what congress has done. often they cite Scalia and Thomas as the two ideals when it comes to a 'restrained judiciary'. interestingly enough, you can look here and see how often our most recent supreme court justices become activists and strike down laws:
Thomas 65.63 %Now THAT is conservatism.
Kennedy 64.06 %
Scalia 56.25 %
Rehnquist 46.88 %
O’Connor 46.77 %
Souter 42.19 %
Stevens 39.34 %
Ginsburg 39.06 %
Breyer 28.13 %
4 comments:
Those are many of the issues with this justice. if you have no problem with those opinions, you are set. if you do, then you may want to contact your senator.
just a quick question. I know that judges can only rule on those cases that have come before them, and that they can only rule on the material presented, what are the chances that in each of the positions you mention, the lawyers for the contravening side just weren't good enough to win?
that is absolutely a risk, and a good point hud. the problem is that, somehow other good judges don't seem to acumilate a record like that when they don't believe in such things. when you believe an abusive spouse must consent to an abortion, it really does come down to your beliefs. most of these views actually have similar roots in a judge that believes in a strikingly small role for the federal government...particularly the ability to regulate conduct.
I have a question about point #2. I have seen it written elsewhere that the ruling was that a woman had to tell her husband before getting an abortion. Your statement of it says that she has to tell the biological father. I know that in a lot of cases this is the same thing but there is a huge difference in the affect on the ruling. I think both have problems but they seem to have different problems and I just want to make sure that my arguments against are on target. Do you know which statement is more accurate, or is there something ambiguous in the ruling that opens it up to this kind of confusion?
Post a Comment