Huck on Judges
By Alexham Posted in 2008 | Judges | Mike Huckabee | Originalism — Comments (57) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
For some time now, many critics of Governor Huckabee have questioned his commitment to appointing conservative justices/judges as president.
Well, Governor Huckabee has finally updated his website to address this issue directly:
One of the greatest ongoing threats to our constitutional republic is the ever-increasing politicization of the federal judiciary. Instead of interpreting the law according to its plain or original meaning, many judges are using the Constitution and statutes passed by Congress as a mere pretense for imposing their policy preferences on the American people. This is unacceptable. The role of a judge is to interpret the law, not to legislate from the bench; and as president, I will only appoint men and women who share this view.
I firmly believe that the Constitution must be interpreted according to its original meaning, and flatly reject the notion of a "living Constitution." The meaning of the Constitution cannot be changed by judicial fiat. The powers delegated to the federal government by the Constitution come from "We the People," and judges have no right to prohibit the people from passing democratically-enacted laws unless we have explicitly authorized them to do so. Nor can vaguely-worded language in the Constitution be used by judges to give them power over subjects the framers never intended our founding document to address. As such, any interpretation of the Constitution that is based on "evolving standards of decency," penumbras, or any other judicial fiction, is antithetical to the rule of law, and must be forcefully challenged.
As president, I will appoint justices and judges who not only share my judicial philosophy ( e.g., Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Antonin Scalia, Justice Clarence Thomas, and Justice Samuel Alito), but who also have established themselves within the conservative legal community as faithful adherents of originalism and textualism. The stakes are simply too high to do otherwise.
Finally, I wholeheartedly believe "that the state exists to preserve freedom, that the separation of governmental powers is central to our Constitution, and that it is emphatically the province and duty of the judiciary to say what the law is, not what it should be"; and I will do everything in my power as president to promote these cherished principles.
Now, I realize that I am biased, but that's about as strong a statement as a judicial conservative could possibly hope for from a presidential candidate. So, while there are still reasons for many of you to oppose Governor Huckabee's candidacy, I hope this issue is no longer one of them.
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | Pres-MI: Huckabee Ahead... but barely — Comments (20) »
Huck on Judges 57 Comments (0 topical, 57 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Especially the subtle dig at Miers.
___________________________________________________________
Disclaimer: I am a member of a state-wide executive committee that is affiliated with Governor Mike Huckabee's campaign for the GOP presidential nomination
.."strict constructionists", and their favorite justices are all either Roberts, Alito, Scalia, or Thomas. I haven't heard any GOP candidate say anything with a dime's worth of difference to Huck's position. I'm not saying Huck won't be good on judges, I assume he would be, but this is same thing we hear from every candidate.
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”
Fred Thompson is directly responsible for Roberts being on the bench. Can any of the other candidates claim that (other can McCain for voting for him)?
--roxer
I expect to see Mitt bring this article up at the next debate (if he picks up on the Miers dig)...as Miers was a W appointee and he is opposed to all constructive criticism of W.
Yeah, because Mitt was critical of Huck calling Bush "arrogant" on Iraq means he is "opposed to all constructive criticism". Right.
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”
______________________________________
Proud member of the Barry Goldwater wing of the party !
___________________________________________________________
Disclaimer: I am a member of a state-wide executive committee that is affiliated with Governor Mike Huckabee's campaign for the GOP presidential nomination
to decorate state buildings. In the area of "establishment" clause interpretation, it was O'Connor's fifth vote for an overbroad view of same that Alito reverses. There have already been two cases in this area.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
his unwillingness to obey a federal-court order.
___________________________________________________________
Disclaimer: I am a member of a state-wide executive committee that is affiliated with Governor Mike Huckabee's campaign for the GOP presidential nomination
I never saw anything wholly offensive to the 1st Amendment in Roy Moore's decision to put up the 10 Commandment's monument. But your right it was his willingness to disobey a federal court order, even though I thought he was right he still has to obey the law.
that the Governor would have backed Moore and forced Bush to decide whether to send in federal troops to remove a courthouse decoration!
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
I'm not too familiar with the case, but disobeying a federal judge is not necessarily disobeying the law unless there is an actual statute that provides penalties for disobeying a federal judge. Judges don't make the law. Something is not a law because they say it. Sometimes I wish more state and local officials would disobey the federal courts.
Roy Moore stood up for what he believed in...i.e. the 10 commandments in Alabama, stood up against the law, and was ostracized, removed, and villified.
Gavin Newsom stood up for what he believed in...i.e. allowing gay people to marry in San Fran., stood up against the law, and was praised, NOT removed, and lionized.
I hate the double standard...Christians are rarely tolerated by the media. Two people broke the law, and now look where these two guys are.
As I said, unless there was a statute prohibiting these people from doing what they did or defying the judges' orders, then they did not "break the law."
game
They would not. Moore acted against the wishes of his fellow jurists on the Alabama supreme court, actually from what I read their objections by rolling in the commandments monument.
He also failed to provide from the git go space for other religious symbols, and this was not a long standing display that had transcended the status of being a religious display and part of the cultural fabric.
The Supremes would have slapped him down in about 2 nano seconds.
______________________________________
Proud member of the Barry Goldwater wing of the party !
Unlike you, I don't blindly accept the bastardized form of constitutional jurisprudence currently fancied by the Supreme Court.
But the bottom line is that the rule of law required Moore to obey the federal court's order, and he refused to do so. Thankfully, his sorry butt was removed from office.
O.k. I think this threadjack has gone on long enough. Let's stick to the purpose of this post, shall we.
___________________________________________________________
Disclaimer: I am a member of a state-wide executive committee that is affiliated with Governor Mike Huckabee's campaign for the GOP presidential nomination
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
gine that wouldn't matter anyway.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
but so much else is not.
You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you.
I don't think he has a competent judicial head. I'm afraid he will apoint someone pro-life, but lacking a consistently conservative judicial philosophy. Kinda like Huck is pro-life but lacks a conservative governing philosophy. Those types of people tend to "grow" in office.
--
"If you're looking for a real conservative, why are you supporting Huckabee? He's completely discredited himself. What about Fred Thompson? If you're looking for a real conservative?" -- Rush Limbaugh (1/7/08)
certainly not to the extent I'd be worried about McCain or Rudy. He wasn't _that_ likely to pull a Harriet Miers simply because of what happened to her.
So does this mean Governor Machiavelli will not criticize the Supreme Court of the United States when it strikes down the National Smoking Ban ?
Honestly, I would almost be willing to predict that he would attempt to threaten the Courts in the way that FDR did with the New Deal, just pack the courts if they strike down the mandatory smoking bans and all his other nanny state proposals that will be in the works.
raising taxes, amnesty for illegals, nanny state governing, and religious pandering as reasons to vote against the Huckster.
Say what you will, this man has proven himself to not only electable, but effective.
More Romney campaign antics...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m01L_YZce78
Did anyone read this?
Apparently, Lavenski Smith is one of those judges who "evolved." I think we've seen enough judges "evolve."
My gosh! it's the Souter Appointment all over again I can see it now. If he's elected I would actually Want all the liberal judges to just stay where they are for 4 years so we can get him out of there and fast!
His statement is full of blanket statements, and does nothing to reverse his denouncement of Lawrence v. Texas. It's actually rather consistent with his campaign's constant use of seductive rhetoric. I'd expect the man to appoint someone in the mold of Consuelo Callahan rather than Thomas and Scalia, on some claim of "pragmatism."
Huckabee remains tied with McCain, in my book, for the Republican candidate least likely to appoint originalist judges.
The role of a judge is to interpret the law, not to legislate from the bench; and as president, I will only appoint men and women who share this view.
Fred Thompson said this months ago and has continued to say it all this time ( http://www.fred08.com/Principles/PrinciplesSummary.aspx ).
How about something original Gov. Huckabee instead of passing off as your own a position stated by someone else?
Fred didn't come up with it either.Bush said the same thing in 2000 and 2004
___________________________________________________________
Disclaimer: I am a member of a state-wide executive committee that is affiliated with Governor Mike Huckabee's campaign for the GOP presidential nomination
It's nothing to get excited about and it's almost word for word what Fred said... months ago. Not that it hasn't been said before. Almost every conservative who has run for the office has said it in one way or another.
should be overturned, explicitely. Rudy and McCain do not.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
McCain did say it, an apparent change from his 2000 campaign. Either way, that does not equate to a statement on judges for anyone other than Duncan Hunter or Rudy. That just shows whether they know the Constitution themselves.
If you want to point out differences in what they have said about judges, you will find them.
Rudy touted his record of appointing "strict constructionists" in NYC courts. Mitt seemed to do the same for his record in Massachusetts (where the legislature is not much different from what our Congress will look like after this year). I've already shown what Huckabee said. Though not as relevant, McCain had added that he would like someone with experience outside the lower courts. Duncan Hunter has promised his judges would protect life. Thompson is the only one not to have added any statements, but his record of voting no on cloture for some Clinton disasters is very reassuring. He is clearly the most trustworthy of the top five on this issue.
judges given McCain's investment in McCain-Feingold and given Rudy'd legal team and his Fed-Soc speech last month.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
I'll say this if this guy actually got elected..I would be willing to bet that All of his crooked Arkansas cronies will be getting these respective Lifetime judicial nominations...regardless of whether or not they're the type we want. He could end up appointing judges that turn very conservative courts like the 11th into the most liberal for all we know.
What Huckabee says and what Huckabee does are two entirely different things.
Thanks Alexham for highlighting Huck's statement. Huck is by far the best on judges as he meets two crucial ingredients necessary for SCOTUS success:
1) Ability to campaign hard to change the composition of the Senate
2) Ability to nominate good judges.
I expounded on this in Reason #2.
After I finally made up my mind that I liked Romney the best, he started attacking Huckabee beyond what was deserved. I hope he has learned to stop his "comparision" ads. I think Romney has been hurting himself and Huckabee, thus making McCain the likely nominee.
Ray J. Tuleya
Romney only told the truth in those ads so yea we can debate whether they were by definition comparison, contrast, or negative ads, but he still told the Truth, 1,033 pardons and commutations, Wayne DuMond.
Huckabee actually attacks Romney now with his cheap little "I remind you of the guy you work with not the guy that laid you off" I HATE HATE that line! It is a TOTAL SCAM!. This proletariat socialist crap that comes out of this fools mouth is going to run this country right into the ground and everyone just covers their eyes and ears and pretends not to see it. To support Huckabee you practically have to abandon everything conservative except pro-life since he is all holier than thou on that one...
Nothing more than our own Machiavelli of the 21st Century.
Huckabee gets around to saying something appealing to conservatives. Want to bet that he's supported a not so conservative justice in the past?
Sorry, this tool has no credibility with me on anything. I can't believe flip flop label sticks to Mitt, while the Huckster gets a free ride. I guess using religion like a sledge hammer let's you get away with a lot.
The Huckster issued a strong written policy on illegal immigration too. But within days he had verbally morphed it into a touchback amnesty that was as weak a policy as anything we have seen in the past. But the tough policy still stands on his website even though it is a totally empty promise. Huck's words are beyond meaningless.
The anchor baby thing a couple of days ago was hysterical. When it looked like he favored stripping citizenship from anchor babies his supporters were all on board with that and posting articles showing how it was consistent with his past positions. And when by the end of the morning his campaign had done a 180 degree course reversal, his supporters were on board with that too. It was beyond funny watching them rationalize both positions within a 4 hour period. Amazingly I did not see one of wake up to the obvious scam that is Mike Huckabee and then jump ship.
There is nothing that Huck won't say to get elected. And there is nothing no matter how egregions, inconsistent with his past or flat irrational that his supporters seem incapable of somehow rationalizing.
---
Finrod's First Law of Bandwidth:
A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it takes the bandwidth of ten thousand.
Start of the semester and things are busy. Since I was a major trouble-maker on this front, I thought I should scratch out a really quick comment.
The statement is very nice, and I am very pleased to see it. Yes, it is somewhat boilerplate, but it is the right boilerplate and, in this instance, it fits with the majority of the candidate's other comments and positions.
Of course, this does not elevate Governor Huckabee above others who have maintained the same position on judges, but it puts him in that group of candidates who will try to do the right thing. Trying and succeeding have historially been different matters at times, so I would still feel a little better if he would announce who is advising him on these issues (as Thompson, Romney, and even Giuliani have done). But I realize that might interfere with his populist image.
Now, in fairness, I must remind you that my criticism of Governor Huckabee on judges was admittedly a matter of questioning whether he understood what is supposed to be his top issue. I challenged him on his home turf, so to say, as an academic exercise. This is a good response. Until he issues a similar statement demonstrating an understanding of fiscal issues and defense issues (which would not be consistent with his past comments or positions), he is still a seriously flawed candidate for the Republican nomination.
Don't believe what he says. Look what he does. He subverted the legal process by pardoning and commuting extraordinary numbers of hardened criminals from the sentences they were given by juries and judges. This is an extremely activist approach that substitutes his feelings (Savior complex) for the requirements of the law.
He will do the same when he appoints judges. Notwhithstanding the fact that he doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of getting elected, Huckabee would almost certainly be facing a Democrat majority in the Senate and on the Judiciary committee, from which not one judge meeting the description he has given will ever emerge. Huckabee will appease his liberal masters in the Senate by nominating liberal activist judges who perhaps do not support Roe v Wade, but who support Huckabee's other liberal ideals - bigger government, more regulation, higher taxes, less individual freedom.
1. Ted Olson, Miguel Estrada leading the policy/selection committee.
2. Rudy has a long record as a street fighter against liberals. He also has a long record of winning those fights. He will submit nominees and will not tolerate the crap GWB has let the Senate (both parties, you listening McCain/Graham/Specter?) get away with. And Estrada will make sure he makes the fight.
3. Huck's little announcement sounds nice, but I have no confidence in his delivery.
4. Huck has no record of fighting with Democrats. He's the bipartisan poster boy and that's a HUGE minus.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
judicial candidates (not just SCOTUS, appeals as well) and he's a lawn order guy who won't be tolerating "law making" judges.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
---
Finrod's First Law of Bandwidth:
A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it takes the bandwidth of ten thousand.
I like that extra level of detail. I hope he has the background to know what that extra level of detail *means*, and I'm not sure he does. I'd like to know who his advisers are.
Unfortunately, the only candidate I trust to know enough to really be able to carry out that kind of commitment si Giuliani, and he wouldn't make it. If he did, he'd be lying.
He ushered Roberts to confirmation. He was selected because Bush trusted him to be able to, and he probably learned a little bit along the way.
--
"If you're looking for a real conservative, why are you supporting Huckabee? He's completely discredited himself. What about Fred Thompson? If you're looking for a real conservative?" -- Rush Limbaugh (1/7/08)
...from any candidate running for the GOP nomination. Rudy even says similar things.
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”