Quote:
Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan
I agree that this should be a legal/personal conviction issue more than a party line issue--but that's what I thought about Bush v. Gore, so I don't harbor any illusions that the court is in any way above the fray.
However, there aren't really 5 liberals on the court. In fact, only two of the justices were even appointed by a democrat: Ruth Bader-Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer.
On the other hand, there are 4 dependably conservative votes, all of whom were appointed by either Bush or his dad: Scalia, Thomas, Alito and Roberts. After that there is one right-leaning swing voter, Anthony Kennedy, and two left-leaning swing voters in David Souter and John Paul Stevens.
At least, I think I have that right. As I said before, I'm not a lawyer.
EDIT For accuracy
|
I watched a fantastic interview of Justice Scalia who is a staunch originalist in that he interprets the constitution in its textual format - what the original drafters of the constitution meant when they wrote it at the time. The interviewer did a great job grilling him on the applicability of 200+ year old interpretation and Scalia defended it well.
Specifically, Scalia was asked about the constitutionality of the death penalty. He said that the death penalty is constitutional so long as it doesnt violate the 8th amendment, however, at the time the constitution was written, the death penalty was widely used for various crimes - not just "capital murder", treason, etc... Therefore, he argues, the death penalty is constitutional for any crime committed today that at the time of the constitutions drafting, would have been punishable by death.
Most importantly, Scalia says that he does not necessarily think the death penalty is a smart way to deal with punishing criminals, but it is, in his interpretation, constitutional. He goes on to say that if people want to outline what crimes are punishable by the death penalty, pass laws - that is the Legislative branches job.
A lot of the interview was also centered around this "political party" misconception. Scalia specifically rejected the notion that there are 'conservatives' and 'liberals' on the court. Rather, there are a variety of interpretations that sit on the court ranging from: originalists in Scalia and Thomas to a "living constitution" (similar to what Canada has) in Ginsberg and Breyer. In fact, Scalia's closest friend on the court and in life is Ginsberg because they value the other's interpretation.
It was extremely insightful and would help debunk lots of myths about how the judges actually view cases and the constitution.
Edit: I should have been more clear Iowa, I dont think you are confusing the definition of conservative/liberal in the party sense... more the constitutional approach sense. Also, Scalia was nominated by Reagan, not Bush Sr. There has been numerous justices that were nominated by either party who later regretted the nomination because of the specific justices' interpretation of constitution: Kennedy, O'Connor, Stevens are recent ones off the top of my head.