Originally Posted by pocketkangaroo

The conservatives are the ones who continue to put laws on the table trying to make it harder to produce porn (ridiculous things in 2257 for example). McCain put together something that would make it real tough to run any social networking (blog, forum, etc) in this country. Republican administrations have also prosecuted obscenity at much higher levels than liberal administrations. The conservative parts of the country are the ones that target it as well (whether it's porn sites, strip clubs, or adult bookstores).

There is no conservative platform that says it's free speech. In fact, the platform is that it's not. That it's obscenity and they should be allowed to prosecute it. Sure Democrats want to tax it, but Republicans want to put it out of business.



Whatever your interpretation of decisions are, conservatives have consistently ruled against pornography in the Supreme Court. Virtually every major decision has had conservative judges siding against the industry. Wanting "strict constructionist" judges is not in your best interest.

As for "twisting the original meaning", note that those liberal judges allowed blacks to vote, go to the same school, invalidated sedition laws, and a slew of other decisions that helped make our country more free. I understand both sides of the fence here, but I do think the strict constructionist go too far and don't do their jobs in ensuring that our rights are not violated. The Supreme Court was put in place to make sure our right were protected, not to be a rubber stamp for Congress.

BTW, those strict contructionist judges on the court now are only strict constructionists when they agree with the issue. See Bush v Gore.