| Welcome to Campfire Soapbox. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Judicial Philosophy Preference? | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Oct 10 2005, 06:20 PM (42 Views) | |
| cmoehle | Oct 10 2005, 06:20 PM Post #1 |
|
Chris - San Antonio TX
|
Having first read Sutherland et al's Judicial Tyranny I am now reading Sunstein's Radicals in Robes for balance. The latter categorizes judicial philosophy into fundamentalist and minimalist. Fundamentalist here is not religious, but judicial philosphy. From the book:
Nor are these categories political. Again from the book:
IMO, Judge Roberts said he was a minimalist. I agree with Sunstein's analysis in John Roberts, Minimalist: He's conservative, but he's no fundamentalist . By Bill O'Reilly's argument in Who's Looking Out for the Christians?, Maureen Dowd is a fundamentalist:
By the same token, so is Tony Perkins a fundamentalist, from Choice of Harriet Miers for Court dividing conservatives:
The question is, which do you prefer? |
|
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order. --Barry Goldwater | |
![]() |
|
| tomdrobin | Oct 10 2005, 09:39 PM Post #2 |
|
Member
|
Using the descriptions you provided, I think I would prefer minimalist SP judges. If the need arises to amend the constitution, there is a process to do that (ie; women's sufferage etc.). Judges should interpret the law not create it. |
![]() |
|
| « Previous Topic · Soapbox · Next Topic » |







1:03 PM Jul 11