Pryor's installment

[DKSuddeth]

I'm not very familiar with this judge, whats the scoop on why bush wanted him and why the dems blocked him?

 

[Moi]

The powers that be want to have a judiciary made up of conservatives and the democrats in congress do not. Sounds simple, yes? Well...

conservatives run the gamut. People can be strict constructionists like I am and believe that every court decision must strictly comply with the words on the page not bend to interpretation based upon what is "right".

Many conservatives, however, are conservative in morals and ideals and would use interpretation to support their causes. It is believed that Pryor is the latter.

Of course this goes both ways. There are many liberal judges who interpret laws and the constitution to fit their political agenda and there are some who, although they feel differently, see the words on the page as being absolute regardless of the end they personally wish would take place.

The greater the court's power, the more important this decision becomes. Thus, the ridiculous filibuster and out of term appointments.

In Pryor's case, those against him point, in one case, to his belief that Roe v. Wade was not proper legal interpretation. He has made quite clear that he believed the court overstepped the reading of the constitution in its adjudication. Clearly anyone who wants a judge to be able to bend the words of the constitution to suit instances for which there is no historic precedent, do not want someone on the court like Pryor. Those who believe that his reading of the words is correct and that there is no instance when the words should be appended would want him on it.

 

[DKSuddeth]

so, in my own case, since I view the constitution as absolute as well, if its not written in the constitution does the government have the authority to change it except by the rules of the constitution?

 

[DKSuddeth]

also, where does that place people concerning priscilla owens?

 

[Moi]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
so, in my own case, since I view the constitution as absolute as well, if its not written in the constitution does the government have the authority to change it except by the rules of the constitution?

Weeeelll... the only laws that are valid are those which are not in contradiction with the constitution. So, if laws are changed, as long as they follow the constitution they are valid and can be changed at the will of the people (through their representatives). The constitution can only be amended as prescribed within.