View Single Post
Old 09-30-2005, 08:12 AM   #24
Ghoulish Delight
I Floop the Pig
 
Ghoulish Delight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Alternative Swankstyle
Posts: 19,348
Ghoulish Delight is the epitome of coolGhoulish Delight is the epitome of coolGhoulish Delight is the epitome of coolGhoulish Delight is the epitome of coolGhoulish Delight is the epitome of coolGhoulish Delight is the epitome of coolGhoulish Delight is the epitome of coolGhoulish Delight is the epitome of coolGhoulish Delight is the epitome of coolGhoulish Delight is the epitome of coolGhoulish Delight is the epitome of cool
Send a message via AIM to Ghoulish Delight Send a message via Yahoo to Ghoulish Delight
Quote:
Does this mean he is unqualified because he interpretted something differently than I would have? Or than Thomas and Rehnquist did?
Based on one or two rulings? No. But if they demonstrate an overriding tendency and philosophy in interpreting the Constitution (e.g., "originalism") that is anathema to what I hold as a view of the Constitution that is healthy for this country, then I, as Senator Delight, could not in good conscience vote to confirm them.

And I just want to make clear that when I'm talking about matching my "ideology", I'm making a clear distinction between political ideology vs. Constitutional ideology. I don't believe I have to agree with someone's politiclal ideology for me to feel they are a good SC candidate, as long as I'm comfotable with their Constitutional ideology and that their political ideology won't intrude on that. Like I said before, you'll see far more crossing of party lines (if you can even define party lines) when it comes to Constitutional questions than anywhere else.
__________________
'He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.'
-TJ

Ghoulish Delight is offline   Submit to Quotes Reply With Quote