|
Interesting...but i am not convinced that State's rights are the overriding main issue with the Court's future appointments. Look at who are the chief backers of state's rights
Chief Justice William Rehnquist
Antonin Scalia
Clarence Thomas
Sandra Day O'Connor
Anthony Kennedy
If you are suggesting that what we need are more of those kinds of minds, sorry but I will take a pass.
If the Supreme Court had in fact followed a pro state's rights policy we might not have Bush to begin with. In 2000 the US Supreme Court could have passed on becoming the arbiters of the election and handed it back to the Florida Supreme Court but they didnt.
The Tenth Amendment reserved to the States all powers not specifically granted to the Federal Gov't and despite the professed love of strict interpretation of the constitution espoused by the current conservative majority those same Justices somehow were quickly able to overlook their reverence for the sovereignty of the states and instead ordered a recount stopped and awarded Bush the Presidency.
Justice Stevens in his dissent ?Although we may never know with complete certainty the identity of the winner of this year's Presidential election, the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the Nation's confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of law.?
__________________
|