Should Supreme Court justices be appointed to serve life terms?

Larry, there are truck loads of neo-leftist Bush haters. While there is so many obsessive Bush haters consumed of demolishing his memory, as long as there are people like you forever bashing Bush, his memory will continue to live on and out live the test of time.

Did not particularly like the "bad pilot but his "imbecilic" running mate is an accomplished governor with a measurable track record and positive outcome of those results. Her ratings as a governor are great. What will history write about you and your mistakes?When you hold a public position, which of your great achievements will memorialized you?

There should be term limits for any "appointed" and "elected"position. Appointments should not out last the appointee. That's why there was so much flack when Bush fired appointed, not elected, not hired attorney's. No career politicians, judges, presidents, etc, etc, etc. One becomes to familiar with his/her job and looses focus and objectivity as to why they are in that position. The position looses is relevance and the person becomes larger than the position they are filling.

Se la vie..............................................

The life terms for Supreme Court Justices is not about Presidents past and present; it is about the balance of power in government. We need these people to be separate from the changes in public opinion and a life term enables that. Yes, Presidents choose these people on a political bias, but that does not mean they are any less qualified to judge fairly and appropriately. If they did not serve for life each appointment would represent public opinion, not necessarily concerned with fair and equal justice for all. Like Justice Hugo Black said,

“Our constitution was not written in the sands to be washed away by each wave of new judges blown by each successive political wind.”

No point in being angry at Bush Jr., this guy was appointed by Daddy Bush and didn't even vote the way he wanted. Time to move on and stop the bashing.

Larry - I got a feeling that you're a "mistake"

NCBGov - The problem is some of the people sitting on the bench now are ideologues of the worst kind. They are most certanly corporatists and do not have the interests of the people in mind. If given half a chance these justices would role back rights that have been hard fought over the decades. If you think I'm overreacting take a good look at the decisions that have been made in just the last few years.

The problem is this - a failed policy, or in this case, two failed political/social thinking policies, still holding sway over the highest Court in the Land. Most people in the US have moved away from the Neo-Cons, Reich-Wing/Religious-Reich Theocratic narrow-mindedness, yet the Court still has a majority that represents this illogical thought process. How can the US grow as a nation if the laws are still going to be interpreted through a lens that most in the US have rejected? The Court needs to move with the times, not have people sit on it for 40 years that cling to ideology that is dead, or soon will be as more Progressive young voters enter the mainstream of US life.

The supreme court is fine the way it is. There job would be easier if law makers knew how to word laws to make their intent more clear....

I don't hate Bush. I think that he will be remembered in history as a good president willing to do what he thought was right for the country without worrying about his popularity.

First Larry, the use of "we" implies that you are speaking for more than just yourself and should not be used unless you know for fact you are able to speak for more than yourself. Second if you apply terms to Justices then they become politicals, they have to vote in ways that will get them re appointed or be removed from the bench. This does not fair well for impartial, fair and just rulings of the cases that have the merit to make it all the way to the supreme court of this great nation.

Now it does not fair well for Obama either because he will probably not get the opportunity to change the ideology of the court. Gee I wonder if he got the Court, Congress, and the executive branch won't we simply give him the title of "King" of the United States of 'Obama'. It is important to remember that things are setup in such a manner to protect against one branch gaining too much or overwhelming power of government. Right now Obama, in the executive branch is doing pretty well because he has the support of the majority of the legislature branch. Thank god that 'we' (the American People) still have one check and balance system left that is not in full alignment with the executive branch. Without it he would have absolute power to do what he pleased when he pleased and as I recall "we" (our for fathers) fought to break away from the Absolute Power of England.

It can be difficult to consider all that is, has been or will be, but the system of Checks and Balances is something that has stood the test of time and should not be destoryed simply because you want Obama to be able to change the Ideology of the court. Lest we remember that not everyone in this great nation voted for him, which means the other half of us still believe in the ideology of the current courts.

Good Day Sir.

Getting back to the topic.

The president should get whoever he appoints, stop this damn political confirmation crap, same for cabinet positions. If Obama wants to appoint tax cheats and criminals that's his choice, just remember it when the next elections comes around.

One reason I love California and will never leave is because of our government and laws.

We VOTE for California Supreme Court Judges. I think we are the only state who does. I have lived in several - MI, CT, NY, PA and CA.

After the Supreme Court took jurisdiction over a matter that was not in their jurisidiction - the Florida vote when Bush/Gore were running for President - I decided that US Supreme Court Judges should not be appointed for life.

The problem is that I think we have to amend the constitution to do that.

Meanwhile, I'll live in CA and vote to my heart's content.

Wrong----we do in Pa too---we just don't have the circus

There have been marginal political nominees before.. The life time appointment is part of the checks and balances. It does not alwats work instantly like everything else today.. but it works as it is supposed to and as it should deliberately just like the court. It is pretty clear this current court will be considered one of the "lesser" courts by history. The Bush/Gore decision will be a heavy stone for this court(The majority even admits that by the direction not to cite the case as precedent)

Many states elect judges.. including their supreme Court Justices.. it grew out of the populist movement..Some states seek to abandon the election of judges.. it is fraught with problems.. and then again people seem to prefer electing judges even thought they frequestly have no idea about the cadidates...There are plans that make a variation on the election.. Such as appointment and then stand for election for rejection or approval of the appointment. I like that one.. althought we elect all of our judges where I live. We have doen a pretty good job.. occassional mistake..usually when a powerful interest group with a lot of money to fund a campaign gets involved

Amen. We need some Supreme Court Justices V2.0 for the love of god....these old timers need to move over and let the rest of us get on with the 21st century.

2 party,

Regarding your comment, we ought to keep in mind that our federal constitution (for better or worse) reflects a much, much older mindset.

Lune

Write up your amendment and start he process then......

I am not sure about "life terms" but some turncoat @!$%#s like Souter might deserve a life sentence!

The entire point is to stabalize the court. Not have it change with every generation.

The court cannot be stabilized when it tries to overturn president whenever the opportunity arises.

A fixed retirement age would encourage presidents to appoint the youngest justices possible, in order to see their ideology on the court for the longest time. I doubt this is a good thing.

And what age would you make it? 65? 50? 85? Who would get to decide this age? Would the age be decided on a per justice basis? This is a big can worms that no one every wishes to open. It is too complicated of a choice and one that could inturn be ruled on by the courts and found unconsititutional. It is a waste of taxpayer time energy and efforts. The system has been in place for years and will continue to be in place. Stop complaining and get on board.

The different comments on younger judges = "proper mindset", "21st century" thinking/though, "represent newer generations", etc... You have to keep in mind that the youngest person on the court right now "John Roberts ( Born Jan 27th 1955) Has:

"Throughout his 26-year career, John G. Roberts has consistently supported and promoted an anti-woman, anti-civil rights, and anti-worker agenda."Roberts was a steering committee member of the DC Chapter of the Federalist Society, an ultra-conservative organization committed to returning to a pre-Civil War era of unquestioned states' rights and rolling back legislation that has advanced women's rights, civil rights, environmental protections and health and safety standards.

As Special Assistant to the Attorney General during the Reagan Administration, Roberts advocated for bills that would have stripped the Supreme Court of its jurisdiction over abortion, busing, and school prayer.

In Lee v. Weisman, Roberts argued for the disintegration of separation of church and state

As Deputy Solicitor General, Roberts argued in a brief before the Supreme Court that: "we continue to believe that Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled.

As Deputy Solicitor General, Roberts filed an amicus curiae brief in NOW's case against Operation Rescue and other violent blockaders, supporting Operation Rescue and individuals who violently blocked access to clinics.

Prior to his nomination to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, Roberts made several comments that revealed his ideological leanings. Regarding the Rehnquist Court, which many have characterized as the most conservative and activist Court in decades, Roberts said, "I don't know how you can call [the Rehnquist] [C]ourt conservative . . . ." He continued this rhetoric when asked specifically about the 1999-2000 Supreme Court term, a very controversial time period for the Court. Roberts viewed the decisions of that term, including decisions that heavily limited the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and the Violence Against Women Act, as reinforcing his view that, "we do not have a very conservative Supreme Court . . . ."

He argued to limit the protections of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)

Roberts filed an amicus brief in Adarand v. Mineta in Oct. 2001, challenging federal affirmative action programs.

He argued against Title IX, the equal education law for women and girls

as where he opposed the landmark Violence Against Women Act (VAWA).

TR Thanks for the post.. I was going to research Roberts today to make a similar post on another site. Good post and great point

What did you say Laurie???

No, not all. Just about 75% of the electorate. The rest would love Lucifer as long as he ran as a Conservative Republican.

Hey Ed, you do know that as a rule Blue States pay more taxes and receive less in federal funding per capita than Red States right?

Which means that the Republicans are the "tax evaders".

They're also living off the federal dole, but that's a whole other point.

Poor Josh, allow us to cry a river. Did you know that as a rule Republicans believe in tax breaks and cuts, and Democrats believe in higher taxes and less incentives. If you align yourself with a party that believes you should pay more than don't complain about paying more taxes. Like wise don't complain about the smart ones that align themselves with the party that believes the people should keep their hard earned money. Man, life is hard when you have to make a choice like this...

Let's look at the facts.

During the 20th century, the Dow Jones industrial average rose 7.3 percent per year on average under Republican presidents. Under Democrats, it rose 10.3 percent - which means that investors gained a whopping 41 percent more. And the stock market declined further during George Bush's two terms.

Moreover, according to research from Professor Larry Bartels of Princeton, real middle class wage growth is double when a Democrat is president, contrasted to that growth under a Republican president.

Since World War II, Democratic presidents have increased the national debt by an average of 3.7 percent per year, and Republican presidents have increased it an average of 10.1 percent. During the same time period, the unemployment rate was, on average, 4.8 percent under Democratic presidents; it was 6.3 percent under Republicans.

That's the historical record.

What about economic policies over the past 15 years? The Clinton-Gore administration presided over the longest peacetime economic expansion in our history. The national debt was reduced dramatically, the industrial sector boomed, wages grew and more Americans found jobs.

How has the Bush-Cheney team fared? In the past eight years, we have experienced the weakest job creation cycle since the Great Depression, record deficits, record household debt, a record bankruptcy rate and a substantial increase in poverty. We have gone from being the nation with the biggest budget surplus in history to becoming the nation with the largest deficit in history.

The Bush administration, supported by Republicans on Capitol Hill, pushed through a sweeping tax cut in 2001, under which the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans reaped 43 percent of the gain. In less than a year and a half, the federal government's 10-year projected budget surplus of $1.6 trillion had vanished. In 2000, we had a surplus of $236 billion. In 2004, we had a deficit of $413 billion. This dramatic reversal is the direct consequence of Bush's tax cuts.

The GOP (Greed Over Patriotism) ranting away about the Democrats, labeling them as the "tax and spend" party. Yet recent research has shown that more than 70 percent of our national debt was created by just three Republican presidents: Reagan and the two Bushes.

http://currencythoughts.com/2008/08/19/how-the-us-economy-performed-under-democrat-and-republican-presidents/
For more on the above

One thing you know about left wingers---their motto is "do as I say, not as I do."

Lucy.. instead of such marginal platitudes.. why don't you try to put factual, valid argument in your post since you think "left wingers"are wihtout honor. IF you strain yoruself and read the post by TR,, try to respond rationally- to try to refute it... Bet you can't...

TR, where did you get your facts? in Mad magazine? Your facts are just plain fiction pal. Even the beloved democrat pres John F. Kennedy was a tax cutter to increase revenue because he knew taxes are about freedom, and when you free the American people they rise to higher heights and produce more. apparently you hate rich people for wanting to be richer; I have news for you, It's human nature and everyone wants the same thing. Who is the big "O" making rich with payoffs that We are now on the hook for. He just pissed away more U.S. wealth than all the previous presidents combined.

Bad idea because one president might end up appointing half the entire court. Very bad idea....

One president might end up appoionting half the court, but they would be replaced a few years later.

Josh I am curious. You seem to be ok with the idea that every 10 years the court has to go back and rule on every case that was previously ruled on. This will be what happens, make no mistake, if you change the ideology of the court like you change the car you drive. Without life terms you end up with politicians in the court lobbying for their next term and trying to please the people that appoint them.

Oh well I really have nothing to worry about because it will not change. Afterall even and amendant to the Consitution can be found unConsitutional.

Result would be a roller coaster ride and probable collapse.. no predictability at all P>

Oh, burn. Hah. Really, since your rebuttal is based on pure speculation then lets speculate on what would be the case had McCain, the Conservative "favorite" (LOL), won. Yeah, more tax cuts, more government, more spending and more war - everything conservatives have championed in the past 8 years. Right. That will balance out just fine and fix this quagmire we're in.

I will take the tax cuts and not avoid paying them like several of the new cabinet members. I did not have a problem with war and protecting our freedoms that we have here. Some people think that if we talk to these animals we can avoid a confrontation with them. How do you talk to anybody that is willing to remove your head from your body and show the video on the Internet? Then they have the audacity to complain about our treatment of prisoners. It sounds to me like you need to go stick your head in the sand and keep you pants up while bending over to bury your head. They trouble with jerks like you is you don't a backbone to keep your body upright. When you have to take a rug to work, if you ever get a job other than government support which by the way is called free loading, kneel several times a day to pray to Allah, wear a diaper wrapped around your head, wrap a sheet around your body, and be willing to blow yourself up in order to get 72 virgins you might realize what a nincompoop you are.

All American Male - The only jerk around here is you because you can't respect anyone elses opinion but your own. Which by the way happens to be wrong. How do you like that. It's just fine with you to spend all the money this country has fighting wars but god forbid that one dime goes to the people of this country to make life better for everyone, well then that's where you draw the line. You'll pay taxes up the wazzoo for war but not for a better life for people here at home. I'm all for defense but not at the expense of better education, better environment, transportation, social programs to protect the elderly, sick and children. I bet you'd throw your grandma out on the street if it meant you had to pay additional taxes for her.

laurie

All American Male would not pay enough taxes to properly equip and support the troops his ilk sent into the wrong war in the first place.

Lets think: Democrats voted to go to Iraq as well. Your argument doesn't make sense.

Okay 2 things I would first like to point out: Lets take note of the new CEO of GM (Barack Obama) if that is not bigger government I don't know what is. OneAmerican, I believe that you have your party information mixed up. Republicans believe in small government and less taxes::as pointed our early in the blog Red States pay less tax::further they believe in the protection of the nation::National Security::

Now on to your comment about the current Tax Rate cut, yes it is true that Obama gave a tax rate cut but if you read the fine print that is only in for the next two years and then it goes right back up. Not to mention that the over tax rate for income tax has not changed so you get to keep more from your check now but come time to file you taxes you will get less back or possibly even have to pay. Reading the fine print is important. Next, and most importantly the definition of a Democrat, the plans presented to Congress reflect a TAX Increase to pay for tax cut and health care plans of the current adminisration. That Tax increase will go into affect in 2011, I believe....

So I am sorely confused about you ideology here. Over the next four years "we" the American People will get tax rate cut only to have it fall back to normal rates and have income tax rate go up to cover a deficit that was sorely increased over the first two years of this presidents term by over 3 trillion dollars and counting because that is not his full term.

Good post LAurie. I do not understand the no taxes or minimum taxes attitude. IF one rents an apartment= one pays rent; if one leases a car - one pays the lease.. Ergo does it not make sense .. if one lives in a country.. wants police, firemen, roads, schools, army, courts, etc.. one pays for services by taxes. So, to paraphrase Burke..Manners and taxes are the bases of civilization. I understand we often disagree on what services should be provided.. I believe we should care for those in need elderly, poor, ill... Others think we should not.. sad

GO USA: I don't think I mentioned a political party affiliation in my post, but just any person who uses justifications like All American Male's.

I'm not positive but I think your views would fit in well in Iran. You may have to push your free market economy platform but everything else would be a pretty good match.

Hey John Lawrence, we are out here and hold up the same banner you are holding up.We are not ashamed, and very proud of our values and what we believe in and are true to those values even when we feel as though we are alone. One thing that can be said about us is that we can take the "heat". As the saying goes "bring it on".

My belief is that when you stand for something positive and great, there will always be opposition from those who hate anything and everything that is godly, right and good. My belief is that when they read all of what you have said, it gets to the core of them and makes them feel uncomfortable. It's like dragging you nails accross a chalk board. Until a man changes his heart, he will never change his mind. Unhappy people demonstrate their feelings through hate filled ways and words. They strike out hoping to destroy the very thing that exposes them. That is why I have lost all respect for journalist, not all, but most. They do not report the news, they report their own opinions and objectives. They are not keepers of truth but have become distorter's and spreaders of lies.

From one very very proud traditional, family values, marriage between a man and a woman, bible thumping believing in everything that is right, honorable and good, I stand with you. Thanks for your post. Loved it!!!!!!!!!!

Problem is, majority of people in this country no longer hold those values, at least not in the more heavily populated states. The Right-wing leaders that do have those values have distorted reality so terribly that people in their own party cannot identify with them any longer, and that's why you saw red states turn blue. People are seeing through their empty, outdated rhetoric. Same old bull@!$%# arguments to every situation: more tax cuts, less government. If McSame and McMoron had gotten in office they would be sitting on each others thumbs right now, not doing a damn thing. And if they had taken any action in the financial crisis, it certainly would have led to the demise of our country, which is what Conservatives really want. They are all power hungry wolves in sheeps clothing, begging for the demise of our country so they can say, "SEE, we told you sinners that if you didn't repent and adopt our Christian faith that it would lead to your demise, and look what happened. This is God's punishment for being morally unclean sinners!!!" I hope this is the demise of the Republican Party, we're better off without their ignorance and fear-mongering.

Hey , you might want to appreciate these qualities a little more because those crazy people like us that believe in them are closer to being in line with the founders of this incredible country. Why don't you go spend some time in Iran and spout your liberal (can only assume from your ridiculous comment) views and see how you are received.

This is the number one problem with this country right now, people that want to force their views on everyone else. Your lives have been enriched with these religious beliefs and thats great. However, you choose to forget the 1st amendment. FREEDOM OF RELIGION! That also includes believing in no religion. My parents brought me up in Christian schools, but had enough faith in their own abilities that they allowed their children to choose what they would believe in. I'm just an ignorant agnostic, but doesn't almost every religion in this country have some version of live and let live?

You can have your religious and moral beliefs just don't shove them down everyone elses throat. That's the problem I have with you people....you just don't know how to live and let live. Keep you nose out of my business and my bedroom and look after yourself. Stop trying to force everyone to believe like you and follow your rules.

Agree 100% with you Laurie. Also, don't forget religious beliefs all are well and good, but when they are mixed with government, the result is usually death on a large scale. Over the course of human history, all religion, whether poly or monotheistic, when mixed with government, have caused more death and destruction to humanity than any other force.

Where do you belong? In the new all-inclusive America.

Where you don't belong is in any kind of policy-making position. The time of intollerance has past.

The funny part about all this "caveman" attitude is millions of Americans are being left for dirt. Who cares about somebody that is poor receiving health care. We have the money you don't...nah nah nah nah! Like the good book "Bible" says, " everyman for himself...if you can't keep up, you'll make a nice lunch for the lions!" Jesus was my hero, he would have never agreed to helping anyone! Money is all that matters...Who CARES about anything else!

*Disclaimer* Views expressed are not those of ME!!

Keith John Lawrence etc.

If left to your devices you would turn this country into an Iran except it would be run by white so-called christian rulers using their bible instead of arabs with their koran. Then you could take away everyone's rights who didn't think just like you. Everyone that's not just like you (minorities, moderates and liberals) would be in jail, deported or worse. What a wonderful place you could live in. Why, to get the conservative point of view across, must y'all be so full of hate, ridicule and contempt??? I get allot of things but I don't get that!!!! I never will understand these christian attitudes until the day I die. And what gets to me the most is that I am a christian. It's sad that I need the supreme court to protect me from you.

You belong on you own island where you can worship your fairy-tale god without advocating taking away the rights of others...especially those who don't believe in your fairy-tale god.

No one is forcing YOU to have an abortion or YOU into a gay marriage. Mind your own business and let others mind theirs!

Reading the bulk of the replies was sad. Personnel attacks, lack of reason and outlandish claims makes for poor reading. The constitution does not support a state sponsored religion but otherwise is silent on that matter. During my business travels I see many new large places of worship therefore I conclude that GOD is alive and well in this country. As long as courts decide matters of great public interest and not the voters themselves controversies will continue. California voted on marriage and a court ruled otherwise. This is one of the root causes of this unreasonable argument.

You post this stupid thing everywhere--You belong where you choose and then you fit in by becoming a member of your community by contributing to the common good, not being overly judgmental and living and let live.. attend or not a church of your choice, obey the law pay your taxes, give to charity, do volunterr work, take care of your family and vote according to your conscience.

This is modern newsmedia wildcat! I agree, I am quite certain that the author of this question never read the Federalist Papers (neither has most of Congress, I would wager) but it wouldn't matter. It isn't about whether it's a fair question, but provocative. Provocative rules the media because it gets ratings. THAT is the major problem, whether you are from the left or right or anywhere in between.

Provocative to further divide the country...Where is the responsibel press? It is NOT Fox news.. and I do not think it is MSNBC- those are "entertainment not news reporting

namvet

you are correct no one should hold any post for life. There is a pont in your life that your judgement it not all it shoud be. what post does anyone else hold FOR LIFE?

Parent, husband, wife, child, American, Christian.... should we set limits on these roles?

namvet and Dee - we allow teachers the right to serve for life. This is the reason we have so many flaming Democrats at University's today, they have no fear of losing there job. Are you saying that would should make (force) them step down. Should we simply make every American stop working at a certain age and go on government support? Well I guess that is a Democrat way of looking at it, since Democrats are for bigger government they would like have a large majority of the American Population relying solely on their support.

dmd Why can'r the faculty on the right get tenure.. can't they get PhDs.. What is wrong with you guys,, right, left, middle, smart stupid...-are protected by this check and balance feature.. Purposely made part of the court system by the founding fathers..It helps stabilize the govt and the Country.. We do not need "instant messaging" on the Courts--Just as in universities-- very often Profs need shileding from "politics" I understand we get stuck with some turkeys.. but overall... the good outweighs the problems

You don't allow for justices to be humans with different beliefs and backgrounds. If everyone thought the same, we wouldn't need judges or juries. Do you really believe that every decision is so black and white or right or wrong that the constitution already has all the answers. The document has held up rather well for only 200+ years of existence going from feather and ink to the internet. With all it's imperfections our Nation has the best form of jurisprudence on earth. Changing it could give us deminished personal rights that America was based on. With all the imperfections, we still have the ability to prevail over established mores. I believe that for all the mistakes that are made, there is no better place on earth to live.

I have always wondered how one person can interpret the Constitution one way and another person another way...

The only way to take the politics out of the court is to not allowing precedence to be reversed... That's the way Stouter was..If it was a new interpretation he would have an opinion...If the case was brought before the court trying to reverse a ruling he would stand for not reversing the precedence...

GregL

Plessey V Fergurson Supreme Court case spelling might be off. Precedence is not a holy grail but rather a guide post that should be respected and ahered to and Changed when needed.

ALex and Greg -- breaths of fresh air and intelligent posting..I love that COnsitution... and overall the Court has not done badly over the years.. plus it is hard to predict what a Justice will do-Warren, Blackmun....etc(Justice Black from ALabama had been a member of the KKK- )

There are valid different views of the Constitution..(There are soem invalid ones too)--However, the Justices are able to disagree wiht honor etc.. ergo the dissentsFOr example SOuter in teh Bush/Gore case

bibol,

The US Constitution vests all judicial powers in the Supreme Court (although congress can establish—and has established—"inferior" courts to help with the case load). Because the Supreme Court exercises ultimate judicial authority, and because the US Constitution is the supreme law of the land, the Supreme Court can indeed declare laws unconstitutional (but so can the inferior courts, as they often do).

You're correct, though, in pointing out that sitting justices may be impeached if they don't exercise "good Behavior."

Lune

The primary function of the Supreme Court is to interpret the Constitution. Declaring laws unconstitutional is exactly their function.

THE USSC is an equal branch of governmentand the second Chief Justice. a great jurist- wrote a great opinion in Marbury v. Madison(the midnight judges case)establishing that equality and that the COurt has power to declare laws unconstitutional.. No Court- no the conservative Courts, the moderate ones nor the libral courts.. have elected to reverse Marbury IT was a great decision and terribly important to the great development of our nation and its stability

New nominee for "Dumbest Post of the Year Award"

JJD, you must be new to newsvine. That's not even in the same universe as the most idiotic post this year.

Point Me To It - I'll be the Judge !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!, but not for life

(and it's only a nomination - may not win)

Not of the year, but it's a good one from Lyn-307031: Sodium will make you fat too!!!

:-P

YOu might not like the post by Cattrax - but it makes a valid point..I think over all conservatives do not change the world....by definition.. However Right wingers.. do battle with anything different and go to war to change the world..(I know before you get your collective tails in a knot...FDR and WW..must say however, different kind of wars)

iowa,

Can you cite some sources for your claims here? While you're casting about for them, you might want to consider this passage from the Federalist Papers:

"The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution, is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents."

In Iowa's case, the legislature passed a law that conflicted with a provision of the Iowa state constitution. Because the constitutional provision trumps the legislative act, the judge properly declared the law unconstitutional under Iowa's state constitution. This process has precisely informed judicial review at all levels ever since the adoption of the federal and state constitutions.

Lune