Ann Coulter:
For fun, we ought to replace all the Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee with "American Idol" contestants (assuming they wouldn't object to serving on a committee that includes a degenerate like Teddy Kennedy). Democrats would still not be able to persuade a single normal American that Sam Alito is "out of the mainstream."
Indeed, it's gone very well for Judge Samuel Alito. Of course, the baseless attacks of certain senators have gone
way too far, clearly exemplifying the sorry state of today's Democratic Party. And while pathetic,
the Dems' shameful behavior is very hurtful to some (Alito's wife, for instance,
broke into tears yesterday) and offensive to many (apparently everyone who knows Judge Alito).
Paul Zummo at Confirm Them says that the hearings have "become a sick sideshow all for the glorification of people who aren’t worthy to lick Samuel Alito’s shoes." Strong, but probably true.
Meanwhile, Sen. Brownback gave
an impressive presentation yesterday on why Roe v. Wade should be overturned.
Plus,
Terence Jeffrey wrote an excellent column yesterday on stare decisis, which I spent a lot of time on in
a recent post. " How many times does someone have to repeat a falsehood before it becomes true?" Jeffrey asks. Of course, a falsehood never becomes true. He continues:
Now, the confirmation hearings for Associate Justice-nominee Samuel Alito, demonstrate that for Senate Judiciary Chairman Arlen Specter there is a second question that must be considered when it is indeed the Supreme Court that has repeatedly declared a falsehood.
The question is: How many times must a majority of the court repeat the falsehood before it becomes binding on all future justices?
The falsehood repeated by the Supreme Court that Specter would like to preserve is not that lead is gold. It is that the 14th Amendment created a right to kill an unborn child. This so-called “right” was first discovered by seven members of the Supreme Court in the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision. It was immediately exposed as a falsehood by the late William Rehnquist, then an associate justice, who pointed out in a dissent that the abortion-limiting laws of 21 states, including the Texas law specifically addressed in Roe, had been in force before ratification of the 14th Amendment and had remained in force for more than a hundred years after ratification.
The main question, it seems, is whether "stability" is more important than being constitutional. The majority in
Casey said just that:
Specter quoted a remarkably cynical statement Justices O’Connor, Kennedy and Souter made in Casey. “After nearly 20 years of litigation in Roe’s wake,” they wrote, “we are satisfied that the immediate question is not the soundness of Roe’s resolution but the precedential force that must be accorded its holding.”
In his hearings, Judge Alito has, disturbingly, spoken of something similar - a two-step process of first looking at stare decisis and the value of precedent, and then, if necessary, reevaluating the actual issue.
But a judge's ideal method seems obvious to me:
If a past decision is clearly incorrect (e.g., Roe), one should vote to overturn it. If it is not clear, one should - according to stare decisis - let the original ruling stand. But the Constitution always comes first. After all, that's the document a justice swears to uphold.
I agree with Mr. Calvin regarding the rude treatment exhibited by certain Democrat Senators and regarding the non-binding role of stare decisis.
"Please pass this on:
The NEW Bill of Rights
(The Times Demand It)
I
Congress shall make no law respecting the prohibition of any act of sexual depravity on any public concert stage, rap song, or episode of Desperate Housewives, nor shall the rights of pornographers to produce and peddle smut be abridged. Acts of public religious expression may, however, be prohibited, unless the religion in question is Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, Wicca or any other religion besides Christianity. (Contact your local ACLU for further guidelines).
II
The right to keep and bear arms used to be necessary to the security of a free state. Not anymore. The government now provides you with the FBI, the BATF, FEMA and a host of other federal police agencies you have never heard of; these will provide you with all the security you need. In the event of an encounter with a dangerous criminal, feel free to dial 911 or contact your nearest Homeland Security representative.
III
No soldier shall, in time of peace, be quartered in any house, nor in time of war, except in a manner prescribed by law. However, American taxpayers shall help foot the bill for the housing, clothing, feeding and prophylactic devices of foreign troops through monies appropriated by the government on behalf of the United Nations Organization.
IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects from unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated, except by the IRS during the prosecution of a random financial audit, in which case all of these things shall be surrendered upon demand and for which a warrant may be secured without any probable cause or evidence that a crime has been committed. Failure to comply will result in excessive fines or imprisonment.
V
No rich or famous person shall be held to answer for any infamous or capitol crime. If the glove doesn’t fit, you must acquit. Further, charismatic politicians who lie under oath before a grand jury shall not be prosecuted for perjury if the lie in question was told to conceal marital infidelities. All others who run afoul of the law, however, may be compelled to testify against themselves via plea bargaining, which use the threat of maximum penalties to wring a guilty verdict from possibly innocent men and women. No one may be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law (except unborn children), and private property shall not be taken for public use (like a shopping mall) without the permission of your local city council and without a compensation to be determined by the land thieves themselves.
VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the prosecutor or judge’s choosing. Jurors who may not give the court their desired verdict might be screened out. Tax payers shall foot the bill for the defendant’s defense.
VII
The right of trial by jury shall be preserved subject to the constraints mentioned above, but common law is an archaic and outdated dinosaur. We think international socialist law is a better way to go now.
VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, excepting, again, the IRS, who may fine you into financial ruin if they so desire. Cruel and unusual punishments shall not be inflicted upon prisoners. Such punishments include but are not limited to not having cable, air conditioning, prophylactic devices, or free medical and dental care.
IX
The enumeration, in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage the right of the Supreme Court and other federal agencies to abolish those rights when they shall see fit.
X
The powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited to it by the States, used to be reserved to the States and the people, respectively. Not anymore. The government may now assume new powers determinate upon its own choosing and upon the willingness of the States and the people to surrender the said powers. Such new powers may be created out of thin air and include but are not limited to: the right to impose predatory wolf and bear populations upon unwilling states, the right to oversee the public education institutions of the states, the right to shut off farmers’ irrigation to save sucker fish, the right to specify the amount of gallons a toilet in your home may flush, and any other power which the government decides is best for it to have in order for it to take better care of you. Have a nice day.
Endnote: The above is to be taken with a grain of salt and is
intended purely as satire. However, on a more serious note,
all Americans who do love the freedoms and protections of
the original Bill of Rights should view with alarm infringement of the same.
This is a matter as serious as the prosecution
of our wars because it defines part of what our soldiers fight
for in the first place. It sobers one to reflect on the
beautiful features and wisdom inherent in our Constitution,
and then to realize that the men who created it, by a large
majority, refused it’s ratification without the addition of every
single one of the REAL Ten Amendments. Think about this: if
you live in a system without any one of those amendments,
you live in a system the Founding Fathers refused to
countenance. Keep it intact.
http://thesagebrushpatriot.blogspot.com/