The interpretations of laws have a profound effect on what the laws are. That makes a huge difference on how we handle cases and what are the rights of many. The question is does the ruling create something in the law that goes beyond the law itself? What was not intended by the law?

Some may argue there are cases where judges do go beyond the law in their intepretation. Others will argue it as necessary because how poorly some laws are written, requiring them to try to find the meaning of the legislature/congress in the law. Also they are the defenders of the Constitution, and that is a duty they all see that comes before all others.

Bork falls into the category of showing clear prior bias, and would have been a disaster. His travels afterwards proved that out. So the Senate got that one right.

Actually Renquist and other conservatives went through the process before those two relatively easily.

By the way, partisianship didn’t start a few years ago. It started from the founding of our country. Payback goes back to Washington, Adams, Jefferson, and particularly Hamilton.

How the heck did you figure out my Machiavellian plan? It has always been my goal to begin a career as a judge just before my 66th birthday. This blog has been a platform to lockup the atheist vote. I have been hoping no one noticed my hostility to religion. It only applies to Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists. I’ve been quiet about Shinto and Taoism.

However, recent events have caused me to revise my strategy. Buddy has convinced my that I have a good shot at the Souter seat. My ascendancy to the Supremes would be their most important change since Diana Ross left.

It’s funny how a clearly conservative judge isn’t subject to the same objection as one thought to be a liberal. Unless her judicial writings shows something bias without support, she should receive the same consideration and approval as Roberts, Alito and Scalia.