FYI, here's an excerpt from the 2008 GOP platform:Appointing Constitutionalist Judges for the Nation's Courts Judicial activism is a grave threat to the rule of law because unaccountable federal judges are usurping democracy, ignoring the Constitution and its separation of powers, and imposing their personal opinions upon the public. This must stop. We condemn the Supreme Court's disregard of homeowners' property rights in its Kelo decision and deplore the Court's arbitrary extension of Americans' habeas corpus rights to enemy combatants held abroad. We object to the Court's unwarranted interference in the administration of the death penalty in this country for the benefit of savage criminals whose guilt is not at issue. We lament that judges have denied the people their right to set abortion policies in the states and are undermining traditional marriage laws from coast to coast. We are astounded that four justices of the Supreme Court believe that individual Americans have no individual right to bear arms to protect themselves and their families. Republicans will insist on the appointment of constitutionalist judges, men and women who will not distort our founding documents to deny the people's right to self-government, sanction federal powers that violate our liberties, or inject foreign law into American jurisprudence. We oppose stealth nominations to the federal bench, and especially to the Supreme Court, whose lack of a clear and distinguished record leaves doubt about their respect for the Constitution or their intellectual fortitude. Nominees must have a record of fidelity to the U.S. Constitution and the rule of law. We reject the Democrats' view that judicial nominees should guarantee particular results even before the case is filed. Judges should not be politicians. Jurists nominated by a Republican president will be thoughtful and open-minded, always prepared to view past error in light of stare decisis, including judicial fiats that disenfranchised the American people. No qualified person should be denied the opportunity to serve on the federal bench due to race, ethnicity, religion or sex. In affirming Article VI of the Constitution — that no religious test shall ever be required for any office — we insist that the Senate should never inquire into a nominee's religious convictions and we condemn the opposition, by some members of the Democratic Party, to recent judicial nominees because of their ethnicity or religion.This part of the platform was discussed recently in an article in The Hill. It should come as a surprise to no one that a driving force behind this part of the platform was Manny Miranda. Congratulations Manny!The only part that I really take issue with is the part about Kelo, which I've previously described as correctly decided. Ms. Kelo was entitled to much more than fair market value, but I don't think the taking was completely prohibited by the Constitution. It should have been prohibited by the Connecticut legislature, however. I agree with Jonathan Adler: "[W]hile I would like to read 'public use' as a strict limitation on government use of eminent domain for a small set of purposes, there is little warrant for this interpretation in either the ratification history or the court's jurisprudence of the past 100 years or so." James Madison agreed that property taken by the government does not have to be used by the government, and Madison endorsed taking slaves to set them free: "Whatever may be the intrinsic character of that property [slavery], it is one known to the constitution and, as such, could not be constitutionally taken away without compensation."read more
original article