What type of Justices would President Paul nominate?

[ConsideringRonPaul]

Can anyone draw any parallels to any famous past judges that would mirror the type Paul would pick? Obviously they would be strong literal Constitutionalists, but what would that mean for controversial decisions. For example, if the topic of homosexual "marriage" came before the court, would it be left up to the states or would the court legislate from the bench as what happened in Roe v Wade? I'm assuming the Court would go with the latter (as it so often does), and, if so, how would a Paul Justice vote? Or would he not out of principle?

[anaconda]

Please ignore the crankish title of the youtube


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YNLk4Qjietw

[AdamT]

One word: Andrew Napolitano.

[GeorgiaAvenger]

Judge Nap is 61, too old for the Supreme Court. Also, we could really use him as Attorney General to clean up the corrupt Holders mess.

I like that Cuccinelli guy, and he is young.

[anaconda]

Judge Nap is 61, too old for the Supreme Court. Also, we could really use him as Attorney General to clean up the corrupt Holders mess.

I like that Cuccinelli guy, and he is young.

Why is 61 too old for the Supreme Court?

[ConsideringRonPaul]

Judge Nap is 61, too old for the Supreme Court. Also, we could really use him as Attorney General to clean up the corrupt Holders mess.

I like that Cuccinelli guy, and he is young.

^I'm liking your posts Georgia. I like Ken as well.

[GeorgiaAvenger]

Why is 61 too old for the Supreme Court?
Because they are appointed for life.

I would prefer appointing someone in his early 40s, but that is just me. Also as I said, I want Judge Nap as the Attorney General.

[specsaregood]

In a Larry King interview, he suggested he might appoint somebody like this guy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Turley

[ConsideringRonPaul]

In a Larry King interview, he suggested he might appoint somebody like this guy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Turley

Clicked the link, that guy disgusts me. Only good thing is protecting civil liberties.

[specsaregood]

Clicked the link, that guy disgusts me. Only good thing is protecting civil liberties.

Including the 2nd amendment and came out against the obama healthcare (limited view of commerce clause).
hell, even testified in favor of clinton impeachment. :) seems rather non-partisan.

[Captain America]

Stephan Kinsella


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRqsdSARrgk

[ConsideringRonPaul]

Including the 2nd amendment and came out against the obama healthcare (limited view of commerce clause).
hell, even testified in favor of clinton impeachment. seems rather non-partisan.

Wikipedia: "Turley is frequently regarded as a champion of liberal and progressive causes"

[specsaregood]

Wikipedia: "Turley is frequently regarded as a champion of liberal and progressive causes"

Lol, is that where you stopped?


Turley is frequently regarded as a champion of liberal and progressive causes, especially on issues such as separation of church and state, environmental law,[16][10] civil rights,[7][17] and the legality of torture[18][19][20][21]—as someone who speaks truth to power.
Oh noes he is a progressive because he is for civil rights and is against torture!



He worries that the Supreme Court is injecting itself into partisan politics.[28] He has frequently expressed the view that recent nominees to the court hold extreme views
I agree with him on that!



However, Turley has a strong libertarian streak and sometimes infuriates the left[10] with a contrarian position.[22] For instance, he has said, “It is hard to read the Second Amendment and not honestly conclude that the Framers intended gun ownership to be an individual right.”[8] In May 2009 the Daily Kos said that, "Jonathan Turley is an embarrassment!" because Turley had suggested that supreme court nominee Judge Sonia Sotomayor was not "brilliant" enough for the job.[22][31] Moreover, Turley testified in favor of the Clinton impeachment.[32]

Nothing much wrong with that!



In another commentary that outraged progressives, Turley defended Judge Henry E. Hudson's ruling declaring the individual mandate unconstitutional for violating the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, saying: "It’s very thoughtful—not a screed. I don’t see any evidence this is motivated by Judge Hudson’s personal beliefs. . . . Anybody who’s dismissing this opinion as a political screed has obviously not read the opinion."

against the obamacare mandate.



Turley has testified in Congress against President Bush's warrantless domestic surveillance program and was lead counsel in a case challenging it.

With him there.

We could do much worse.

[Acala]

Can anyone draw any parallels to any famous past judges that would mirror the type Paul would pick? Obviously they would be strong literal Constitutionalists, but what would that mean for controversial decisions. For example, if the topic of homosexual "marriage" came before the court, would it be left up to the states or would the court legislate from the bench as what happened in Roe v Wade? I'm assuming the Court would go with the latter (as it so often does), and, if so, how would a Paul Justice vote? Or would he not out of principle?

I can't see where in the Bill of Rights the issue of marriage would be covered. So I think state laws banning gay marriage would not be overturned by a strict constructionist justice. Federal laws would be voided as being outside Congressional authority. But this is a really trivial issue compared to, for example, are the Social Security and medicare systems authorized under the
Constitution? (No!)

[Created4]

He also has strong ties to Washington DC Attorney Jonathan Emord, one of the top constitutional lawyers in the country. He is the only lawyer to successfully litigate against the FDA (several times) and win. Emord has written some of the language in some of his bills related to health freedom. http://www.emord.com/Jonathan-Emord.html

[Simple]

I like Ron Paul for the same reasons that I like Clarence Thomas. Both men not only honor and respect the Constitution, but both men cite historical facts to back up their positions.

[cindy25]

Judge Nap is not too old; he would have 20 years or so on the court.

if age is the factor he could appoint Justin Amash, and have 50 years.

[Peace&Freedom]

The simple solution: Make Nap the VP pick, or make him the AG, but either way he'll be the quarterback of the "return to the Constitution" brigade placed in the Paul Justice Department and on the SC. Additional people for the team:

Jacob Hornberger, Jim Ostrowski, Bruce Fein (IF he can be trusted/not a neocon mole)

SC picks: Hornberger, Janet Rogers Brown (maybe), Alex Kozinski, Robert George.

Additional reading:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/ostrowski/ostrowski76.html

http://reason.com/archives/2005/07/01/who-should-reign-supreme/singlepage

[Feeding the Abscess]

Judge Nap is not too old; he would have 20 years or so on the court.

if age is the factor he could appoint Justin Amash, and have 50 years.

Amash wouldn't make it through the Senate confirmation process, he's never been a judge. I'm not sure he's ever even been a practicing lawyer. He'd be viewed as being unqualified.