October 27, 2005
Whirled Series 2Posted by Bryan
Harriet Miers is withdrawing her nomination? Seriously? That's so disappointing. I was hoping she'd be considered on her merits. How am I supposed to go bat with the implications of what this means to federal juris prudence in our nation in a time when unconstitutional judicial legislation is rampant and partisan politics have corrupted the dialogical discourse in America?
In my minds eye I have tried to put myself at the table with the Framers of the Constitution. It seems completely realistic to believe that these great minds were all in agreement when they put ink to paper. It is even more beleavable that these same minds saw into the future and clearly understood how this document would shape our great nation.
On the other hand, is it possible that the Framers knew that as our nation aged there would always be trying and dificult discourse when it came to this country's legal development? Could the Constitution have been written as a tool to couch future legal debat?
Did The Framers, who were not in agreement, construct a document that would allow vigorous legal discourse to define juris prudence?
Posted by: NatLaw at November 13, 2005 7:19 PM