tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3490776317263268706.post1012027375936157523..comments2023-11-05T04:54:51.462-05:00Comments on Justice Watch: Misplaced DeferenceAlliance for Justicehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10189535173876654505noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3490776317263268706.post-90886343572335999852008-12-05T19:44:00.000-05:002008-12-05T19:44:00.000-05:00I predict the WSJ will change its tune right after...I predict the WSJ will change its tune right after Obama announces his first judicial nominations.<BR/><BR/>Odd, isn't it, how those who so loudly decry "judicial activism" (such as President Bush did recently) never seem to notice that some conservative judges are some of the biggest judicial activists.<BR/><BR/>Scalia and Thomas, for instance, would dismantle decades of Supreme Court decisions affirming the principle of church-state separation. If that isn't judicial activism, what is?Charles Powellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11250244363878441539noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3490776317263268706.post-19247748006696165632008-12-05T19:26:00.000-05:002008-12-05T19:26:00.000-05:00No The Candidate Juror's Judicial Philosphy should...No The Candidate Juror's Judicial Philosphy should only be a part of what is considered. The equally or more important part are impartiality, temperament, and legal scholarship. His/her philosophy my be that free trade is important, but if Congress imposes a tariff, the judge must look to the law and not to his "philosophy". The same rules should apply even in the case of same sex marriage and abortion if the law is on the books. <BR/>If the law protects the right to build a church, the judge cannot reject the application because he is an atheist,Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11581416840008540650noreply@blogger.com