I think it was Justice Stevens that said he based some of his decisions on current European laws.
The main point you missed here is Gonzalez is saying is that these justices are supposed to decide the constitutionality of a law, not change National Security policy because they don't agree with it. As did Judge Anna Diggs Taylor by ordering, the government to stop a national security program based on a lawsuit brought on by unaffected parties. On 1/19/07, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > cHat wrote: > > Judges should interpret the laws as written without allowing political > > or personal feelings to affect the interpretation. > > > > I always puzzle about what that means, specifically the word "interpret". > > A good judge should be vetted for his/her academic understanding of > the intent of the framers based on their written opinion and law. In > that sense, a good judge will rule on her belief of what the framers > would do rather than what they would do. > > If that's a fair assumption, then their work should be judged on their > strength of their reasoning and therefore obvious on the intent of > their rule. > > If we agree on that, then any judge should be able to rule on any > issue. Therefore discrediting them due to some perceived lack > expertise is ridiculous. > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Upgrade to Adobe ColdFusion MX7 Experience Flex 2 & MX7 integration & create powerful cross-platform RIAs http:http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;56760587;14748456;a?http://www.adobe.com/products/coldfusion/flex2/?sdid=LVNU Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/message.cfm/messageid:225156 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
