View Mobile Site
 

Ask the Expert

Signal Photos

 

Bipartisanly wrong

Posted: April 30, 2010 11:48 a.m.
Updated: May 1, 2010 4:55 a.m.
 
Diana Shaw wrote a pean to retiring Supreme Court Justice Stevens calling him "a ‘conservative' jurist." ("A (Supreme Court) justice for all," April 13).

Well, I should be surprised that such a column was written by an attorney, I suppose, but nothing written by liberals surprises me much anymore.

First of all, "conservative" justices aren't so simply because they call themselves such; "Republican" doesn't necessarily equate with "conservative" (as we see with Ah-nuld the Governator); and "conservative" doesn't have much to do with simply "honoring" precedent.

True conservatism means faithfully interpreting law in accordance with the original meaning and intent of the Constitution.

McCain-Feingold was a grotesque violation of the First Amendment right of free speech and the Supreme Court rightfully gutted it in Citizens United v. FEC, as well as the earlier Wisconsin Right To Life v. FEC.

It's completely irrelevant that McCain-Feingold was "bipartisan." All that means is that political hacks from both parties ganged up to try to rob this country of a basic and fundamental right; they were caught; and they were corrected. They were bipartisanly wrong.

The fact that Shaw says she'll miss Stevens, the most liberal sitting justice, comes as absolutely no surprise whatsoever; he and Ruth Bader Ginsburg are the darlings of the left.

Obama will be replacing one rabid liberal with, undoubtedly, another, so the current balance will be maintained and no harm done, fortunately.

Comments

Commenting not available.
Commenting is not available.

 
 

Powered By
Morris Technology
Please wait ...