|
|
|
 |
Donate Here By Secure Server
FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794
|
|
It is in the breaking news sidebar! |
|
Posted on 04/13/2003 4:44:49 AM PDT by billorites
DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL candidate John Kerry called for a domestic "regime change" while visiting Peterborough, NH on April 2, mocking President Bush's policy in Iraq.
Six days later in Iowa, he gave a hint of what a John Kerry regime would look like when he told a gathering of Democratic women in Des Moines that only judges who agree with him on abortion would serve on the Supreme Court.
The double-talking junior senator from Massachusetts — who has been both pro- and anti-Vietnam War, pro- and anti-intervention in Iraq, and most recently, both Irish and not Irish — nonetheless claims this exclusionary policy is not a "litmus test" (red, you get the judgeship; blue, you don't — no other factors considered).
"That is not a litmus test. . . . Any President ought to appoint people to the Supreme Court who understand the Constitution and its interpretation by the Supreme Court," he argued.
Right. No anti-abortion judges need apply is not a litmus test. The only other person besides Kerry who could state this contradiction with a straight face is Iraq's former information minister Mohammed Saeed Sahhaf, who recently declared on television, "There is no presence of American infidels in the city of Baghdad" as smoke and hellfire plumed behind him.
With such expertise in doublespeak, Sahhaf, unseen since Tuesday, would make an excellent Kerry campaign spokesman.
In addition to talking out both sides of his mouth again, Kerry is advocating a dangerous standard for the federal bench: To get appointed, you must agree to uphold whatever ruling — Roe v. Wade, for example — the last crop of judges handed down.
"I think people who go to the Supreme Court ought to interpret the Constitution as it is interpreted, and if they have another point of view, then they're not supporting the Constitution, which is what a judge does," Kerry said.
First of all, a judge's job is not to "support," as Kerry puts it, another judge's interpretation of the Constitution. The judicial branch is the body that decides whether existing laws comply with constitutional principles. It is the executive branch, to which Kerry wants to transfer, that is charged with upholding — or supporting — those laws.
As President, Kerry's duty would be to uphold the judges' interpretation of the Constitution. Instead, Kerry wants the judges to uphold the interpretation of the last group of judges.
That's dangerous. Kerry is effectively saying that once the Supreme Court rules on an issue, the law must forever remain unchanged.
As many observers have pointed out regarding the validity of Roe v. Wade, plenty of Supreme Court decisions have been reversed, and mercifully so. The 1857 Dred Scott ruling said that no one descended from slaves had any constitutional rights — regardless of whether they were slaves or free. Should all judges from 1857 forward have been selected for their allegiance to Dred Scott?
Occasionally, judges decide they were wrong years after they rule on a case.
For example, retired Supreme Court Justice Lewis Powell told New York University law students in 1990 that he "probably made a mistake" in Bowers v. Hardwick, the 1986 case that upheld anti-sodomy laws. His was the swing vote on the court, and states' anti-sodomy laws remain constitutional today because of him.
Does Kerry, with his declared reverence for old jurisprudence, plan to appoint only judges who agree with anti-sodomy laws, since the Supreme Court ruled to uphold them in 1986? What would gays in the Democratic Party think if he did?
Given these well-known cases, it's hard to believe the real reason Kerry wants to appoint pro-abortion judges to the bench is that he believes all judges should adhere to all past Supreme Court decisions. It's more likely that he is excluding anti-abortion judges from consideration for the same reason Iraqi scientists were forced to take loyalty oaths: he doesn't want independent thinking to get in the way of his political agenda.
But Kerry first has to win a legitimate democratic election before becoming President. Hence his desire to be all things to all people.
Since he would need to win the votes of some anti-abortion people in the general election if he were the Democratic nominee, Kerry is blaming his litmus test on a phony need to defend old — and fallible — Supreme Court rulings.
In contrast, President Bush refused to rule out judicial nominees because of their views on any one issue when he campaigned in 2000, and he doesn't let criticism derail him from doing what he believes is right. Those leadership qualities would be missing in the new regime Kerry is offering voters.
|
|
|
|
|
Donate Here By Secure Server
FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794
|
|
It is in the breaking news sidebar! |
|
More proof that the left cannot advance their pathetic agenda without stacked courts.
He also said Dubya has "failed" in foreign policy and that he would restore the damaged relations with massive aid handouts and by implementing harsh environmental measures here in the US..
But, it's not all bad though, because he promised to do it in such a way that wouldn't comprimise our right to defend ourselves.
(And before you ask, the answer is no. It didn't make a bit more sense when he said it then it just did when you read it.)
Kerry's attempt at Clinton doublespeak has failed miserably.
I would love to see him in a debate with a real smart aleck like Gary Bauer. (and I like Gary Bauer very much, but he can be pretty ruthless when he wants to be..)
Kerry would lock himself in the closet and shake for a week straight afterwards.
When John F. Kerry is called a "war hero" it sickens me. If he threw "his" medals away in protest, he no longer deserves the honor they represented.
Isn't it amazing how this "little" fact is always omitted from news reports on this Vietnam "hero".?!
My own question for a prospective federal jurist would be as follows:
Sir, are you willing to swear before God and the American people that you will honor the exact words of the Constitution of the United States as they are written, and without prejudice toward anyone's notions about their "penumbras" or "emanations," including those expressed in prior Supreme Court decisions?
A "yes" answer to that is all the "litmus test" I'd require.
Freedom, Wealth, and Peace,
Francis W. Porretto
Visit the Palace Of Reason:
http://palaceofreason.com
This comment says alot. According to Kerry, no Supreme Court judge would be allowed to have an opposing viewpoint on any issue. He/she would have to vote lock-step with every other judge. Under those circumstances, why even have a Supreme Court. A little dictatorial on Kerry's part don't 'ya think? This only goes to show that any Kerry Presidency would be a regime...very controlling, and without support for the Constitution.
Highest bidder for one of his autographed pictures gets you the post! Kerry donates pic of himself
Here is an excerpt from an online article: "The Disgrace of John Kerry" posted by Kevin Willmann.
At a 1971 anti-war protest, some Vietnam veterans put their medals on the steps of the U.S. Capitol in protest of the war. Kerry threw his two Purple Hearts on the steps of the Capitol and then said, ''This administration forced us to return our medals...These leaders denied us the integrity those symbols supposedly gave our lives.'' However, several years later, a reporter noticed Kerry’s Purple Hearts on his office wall. He admitted that the medals he threw on the steps were not his own, but instead were given to him by two other men."
Here is a link to the rest of the article Chronwatch
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.