Conservative judges, liberal judges, constructionist judges

I just want some that will not make up the law as they are there lol. I guess we agree lol

The proper role of judges, just as you describe it, was taught to me in high school. Today, 0bama, gives speeches counter to this wisdom and writes the same in his book AUDACITY OF HOPE and is the leading candidate to become President. That people don't understand judges putting their own interpration on the law leads to tryanny is a total condemnation of the higher educational system.

Last time I read the Constitution, the real Constitution not the one Obama has come up with, there are 7 articles. Article two defines the role of Congress, Article three defines the role of Judicial branch. No where in Article three do I find where it is the role of the judicial branch to create laws. If the Framers of the Constitution wanted the judicial branch to create laws then there would not have been a need for Congress. Now I know that there are some that have never read the Constitution so I have copied and pasted Article three so everyone can actually read it and decide for themselves the role of the judicial branch. The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office. The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects. In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make. Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted. Anyone want to show me where judges are given the right to make laws.

You are so right . Judges are to interpret the law. Not make their own, or make new ones.

Yep and that's why that make some of the decisions they do that some people don't understand. In other words: "It's the constitution, stupid."

I agree that judges should get out of politics, and politics should get out of the appointment of judges (fat chance of course). I find the whole process of appointing judges in the US extremely disappointing, it has become poisoned with political partisanship and judges are appointed it seems not on their merits these days but on their political leanings. The Supreme Court seems to have now become a proxy battleground for political battles between Dems and Reps. It is very sad. You are right that judges should not be liberal or conservative, but should interpret the law of the land based on the laws that congress has passed or historical case law. They should not be reinventing the law, though if they identify that there is a problem with a current law, they should make that clear in their judgement and then it is up to the politicians in Congress and in the White House to decide whether they then wish to amend that law. However, it is not for judges to change the law, only congress and the President should do this.