If you're really concerned about immigration,

[Judge]

then you should care who's appointing the judges. A recent ruling by a Clinton appointee struck down a texas city's law which forbade the renting of apartments to illegal immigrants. The judge stretched the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution saying on the Federal gov't could 'regulate' immigration. It's plainly obvious the city wasn't trying to 'regulate immigration' but the rental of apartments within it's city limits. It was voted on and overwhelmingly passed by the citizens of the city - so the judge is supplanting his whimsy for the will of the people.

If McCain doesn't win, get used to more of the same.


Texas town's immigrant-renting rule is struck down: Financial News - Yahoo! Finance

[Carnivorous]

Oh please. Everyone complains about the judges appointed by the other party. Just keep in mind that you can NEVER tell which way a judge will rule on a particular case by party lines. Heck, the recent California Supreme Court ruling that permits gay marriage under the Clifornia constitution was handed down by a majority of Republican-appointed judges!

[Judge]

Yes you can tell, if you follow the decisions, some will follow the law as written, some will use the UN charter to make decisions, some consistently interpret the law according to their own standard.

That's why Roberts, Alito, Scalia all consistently differ from Ginsburg, stevens et al.

Originally Posted by Carnivorous

Oh please. Everyone complains about the judges appointed by the other party. Just keep in mind that you can NEVER tell which way a judge will rule on a particular case by party lines. Heck, the recent California Supreme Court ruling that permits gay marriage under the Clifornia constitution was handed down by a majority of Republican-appointed judges!

[AZXD]

Whatever ... I agree with the Carnivorous one

[one-eyed-fatman]

McCain's pro illegal too. We lose either way.

[AZXD]

Originally Posted by one-eyed-fatman

McCain's pro illegal too. We lose either way.

Absolutely!!

I wonder who should be blamed for such poor choices ??

[Judge]

it has nothing to do with pro- or anti - illegal. It's how the judges they appoint will interpret the law - by their standards or the standards of the original authors.

Originally Posted by one-eyed-fatman

McCain's pro illegal too. We lose either way.

[Frenchy]

Originally Posted by Judge

it has nothing to do with pro- or anti - illegal. It's how the judges they appoint will interpret the law - by their standards or the standards of the original authors.

A president will appoint according to his mindset...McCain is pro-Illegal.

[AZXD]

Originally Posted by Frenchy

A president will appoint according to his mindset...McCain is pro-Illegal.

Absolutely, he is.
Also, he will have the ear of the SCOTUS, House and Senate whenever he wants it. Hopefully his remarks will fall upon deaf ears ... But you never know.

[Judge]

again, we are talking about the law - how to interpret it. No judge that I know of who is a "strict constructionist" or originalist, will void that principle to rule 'pro-illegal' if that is not the intent of the law. McCain has a very good record of supporting strict constructionists and opposing judicial activists, obama exactly the opposite.

It is then up to the lawmakers to write the laws, and the judges to enforce them, versus interpret them as they please.

Again, that is why there is a difference between how Roberts/Alitio/Scalia rule and Ginsburg/Stevens (who are much more inclined to be 'pro-illegal.'...

You can generally tell how a judge will interpret/rule on laws by his prior opinions - that is why the libs so opposed Roberts/alito/scalia/thomas. There simply is a difference that most people can tell, to deny such is ignoring the obvious.

Originally Posted by Frenchy

A president will appoint according to his mindset...McCain is pro-Illegal.