Quote:
Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Because the pool of potential judges is heavily skewed toward college graduates and against 78 IQ Rush Limbaugh listeners?
|
So, strict constructionists are, by definition, stupider than others?
Reading Ty's profferred article, I see two main propositions:
1. He's rabidly anti-abortion; and
2. He's very much a strict constructionist. His arguments in the
Kimmel line of cases (which really makes up most of the non-abortion-grounded rejection of him as a judge) simply hold that you cannot find, in the Constitution, support for the right to sue a state for many causes for which people would like to sue a state. I don't see anything outrageous in those arguments. The social effect of finding that right serves the interests and aims of many people who would seem to be rejecting Pryor, not on his legal acumen, but his willingness to stay with strict construction even when creativity in interpretation would serve their aims better. Frankly,
Roe should show us how we unite the nation when we "find" new rights.
