Judge Roberts Confirmation, Early Prospects
The confirmation hearings for Judge Roberts began a few hours ago and so far everything has been so predictable it would be boring if it weren't so vital to our future. Ted Kennedy in his continuing bertrayal of his two better brothers legacy continues to assault all things non-extreme left. The Republicans seem to echo each other in their statemnts regarding the role of the judiciary, states rights, and federal responsibilty. The other Democrats sound almost lockstep in thier demands for answers to questions that should not be decided before the case has actually been heard. In other words, expect overwhelming Republican support (no surprise here) and majority Democrat oppsosition during these hearings (also not a surprise).
Suprisingly, the most stand out person so far, in my opinion at least, has been Senator Feingold, a Democrat. The reason he stands out so much is because so far he sounds like the most open minded, fair, and responsible Democrat on the judiciary commitee. Unlike his fellow Democrats he has not alluded to demands for pre-judgement of cases according to his personal ideology. He has not demanded Judge Roberts vow to rule in line with precedent that he believes iolates the Constitution, or any other ridiculous thing the other Democrats seem to want. He has mentioned his concerns, which are understandable if not neccessarily what I would be most concerned with, and he actually said outright that out of his criteria for confirmation Judge Roberts has already passed every test but that of "judicial excellence", which he hopes to determine through the hearings. I can see how he stays a senator in a swing state, heck, even I developed some extra respect for him today. I hope doesn't go and blow it now by going goofy during the question and answer section.
One thing that I keep hearing about over and over from the Democrats if the "right to privacy". This sounds innocuous enough. We all like our privacy and the sense of safety it provides, but this is not how privacy has been used in the courts lately. Privacy has been the big argument for abortion groups to try to undermine any keeping of abortion statistics, parental notification for minors who are seeking abortions, an pretty much everything else that might inform people about some basic facts about abortion. I won't go into those facts here, but I will in a later posting. Just consider this; what are these people so afraid of us knowing? Stay tuned for the answer at later time.
So "right to privacy" is nothing but code for "right to abortion on demand". Great, now what about what a judge is actually supposed to do? This is where the Republicans are focused, and I think rightly so. A judge is supposed to decide cases based upon the Constitution, precident, and existing law. The more liberal the court becomes the less it does this and the more itlegislates from the bench based on personal philosophy and desires. I point to the recent eminent domain decision as case and point. But this is not the only case. In cases involving the seperation of church and state since the sixties the court overturned dozens of precidents that actually went so far as to declare America to be a Christian Nation, and defended public expressons of faith, any faith, and stuck to the words of the Constitution that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Of course the Supreme Court seems to think it can restrict the free exercise of religion as it wishes. This is not surprising with former top lawyers/activists for groups like the ACLU on the court, thank you very much Republicans for betraying America by actually voting to conirm a certain someone who matches this description rather than voting her down. I swear, If the Democrats can vote down a respected judge like Robert Bork then the Republicans should feel free to vote down liberal activists like Ruth Bader-Ginsberg.
Of course, to hear what is being said so far we can all expect certain Democrats to try to Bork Judge Roberts of fillibuster him simply because they don't want a brilliant,conservative, Supreme Court justice who believes in the Founding Fathers original intent when they wrote the Constitution over two-hundred years ago. Any politician from any party who does this is showing his true colors, and they are not red, white, and blue. Remember this the next time you go to the voting booth.
Suprisingly, the most stand out person so far, in my opinion at least, has been Senator Feingold, a Democrat. The reason he stands out so much is because so far he sounds like the most open minded, fair, and responsible Democrat on the judiciary commitee. Unlike his fellow Democrats he has not alluded to demands for pre-judgement of cases according to his personal ideology. He has not demanded Judge Roberts vow to rule in line with precedent that he believes iolates the Constitution, or any other ridiculous thing the other Democrats seem to want. He has mentioned his concerns, which are understandable if not neccessarily what I would be most concerned with, and he actually said outright that out of his criteria for confirmation Judge Roberts has already passed every test but that of "judicial excellence", which he hopes to determine through the hearings. I can see how he stays a senator in a swing state, heck, even I developed some extra respect for him today. I hope doesn't go and blow it now by going goofy during the question and answer section.
One thing that I keep hearing about over and over from the Democrats if the "right to privacy". This sounds innocuous enough. We all like our privacy and the sense of safety it provides, but this is not how privacy has been used in the courts lately. Privacy has been the big argument for abortion groups to try to undermine any keeping of abortion statistics, parental notification for minors who are seeking abortions, an pretty much everything else that might inform people about some basic facts about abortion. I won't go into those facts here, but I will in a later posting. Just consider this; what are these people so afraid of us knowing? Stay tuned for the answer at later time.
So "right to privacy" is nothing but code for "right to abortion on demand". Great, now what about what a judge is actually supposed to do? This is where the Republicans are focused, and I think rightly so. A judge is supposed to decide cases based upon the Constitution, precident, and existing law. The more liberal the court becomes the less it does this and the more itlegislates from the bench based on personal philosophy and desires. I point to the recent eminent domain decision as case and point. But this is not the only case. In cases involving the seperation of church and state since the sixties the court overturned dozens of precidents that actually went so far as to declare America to be a Christian Nation, and defended public expressons of faith, any faith, and stuck to the words of the Constitution that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Of course the Supreme Court seems to think it can restrict the free exercise of religion as it wishes. This is not surprising with former top lawyers/activists for groups like the ACLU on the court, thank you very much Republicans for betraying America by actually voting to conirm a certain someone who matches this description rather than voting her down. I swear, If the Democrats can vote down a respected judge like Robert Bork then the Republicans should feel free to vote down liberal activists like Ruth Bader-Ginsberg.
Of course, to hear what is being said so far we can all expect certain Democrats to try to Bork Judge Roberts of fillibuster him simply because they don't want a brilliant,conservative, Supreme Court justice who believes in the Founding Fathers original intent when they wrote the Constitution over two-hundred years ago. Any politician from any party who does this is showing his true colors, and they are not red, white, and blue. Remember this the next time you go to the voting booth.
posted by Daniel Levesque at
10:03 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home