ahhh yes....Joe Farah is again showing why we should do exactly what he says we shouldnt.....
I wonder if the NYT will employ him after THIS article or not?
what a Maroon....
This sort of sounds like Ted Kennedy's statement.
I believe Mr. Roberts called our system of governance a "Representative Democracy"
Bingo! Farah is a contrarian ..and often wrong.
Calling Farah names and making snide remarks won't change the fact that the questions he raises are legitimate.
I personally think Roberts is going to make us very happy in the end.
It's only a stroke of genius if he actually turns out to be a real conservative...
If he turns out to be another Stevens or Souter... Bush will in the end look like an idiot.
It's a shame that no one on our side is demanding for this guy to disclose his views. Why is it Republicans always have to leave it to chance when we nominate a USSCJ but the liberals get it right 100% of the time.
I used to enjoy WND but the website is reaching Weekly World News status.
Issues and policies can change (along with your position/perceptions on them based on a moment in time), but your fortitude in rejecting "illegal" foreign "precedents" and "standards" is critical to the primary function of the SC: to support OUR Constitution.
Since it said Joe Farrach I'm not going to bother to read the article but I'm guessing the gist of it is that John Roberts smuggled a suitcase nuke in from Mexico and he plans to knock out our telecommunications with a giant EMP blast. Is that about right?
Farah almost had one of the first serious internet based media outlets at WND. But he's an idiot, and I don't read his work or peruse WND because he's still there.
Yeah, when he said democracy ... in the back of my head red flags were going up also. I figured I was the only one in America that caught that.
I would feel ALOT better about this guy had he said republic.
Mr. Farah is indeed splitting hairs. John Roberts knows that we have a Republic, not a democracy. The democracy usage is just common terminology and those who know American history recognize the difference or distinction within the context of such usage. I am reminded again that the rabid socialist left who are predictable enemies of this President are less a threat to good people taking public office than are the hair splitting know it alls on the right. John Roberts is an excellent candidate for SCJ and should receive all of the support conservatives can muster.
I'm not aware of "hundreds" of Supreme Court decisions being reversed by a court of appeals. Or even one. Maybe Farah can give a few examples in his next column....
For a judge being consider for a seat on a federal appellate court, Roe is settled law. Any federal appellate judicial candidate who couldn't follow Roe as precedent shouldn't be approved by the Senate. You don't pick and choose which precedents to follow. As a lower court, you are bound by the decisions of higher courts. That's first year law student stuff.
That is a completely different question from whether that same judge would or should consider Roe as binding precedent on the Supreme Court, because unlike an appellate court, the Supreme Court has the power to reverse Roe.
Conservatives like Farah tick me off because they're not really judicial conservatives at all. They're activist conservatives who think judges should do the "right thing" regardless of what the law is. All he cares about is the result -- does Roe stand, or not? Whether its judicially proper for an appellate judge to make that decision apparently doesn't figure into his thinking.
Roberts gave the exact answer to that question he should have given.
Then there are others who've been on the road to stop these activist jurist who are giving Judge Roberts a thumbs up. Taking our country and our courts back...we're on the road...Thank You President Bush.
This indeed seems to be the same modus operandi of the feckless GOP that has wound up compromising conservatism. They and
Of course the cynic in me does NOT believe believe GOP Presidents since Nixon were either ignorant or sloppily uninformed about the choices of Souter/Kennedy/O'Connor, etal., but that they knowingly opted to maintain a "balance" in the SCOTUS.
Why??
CFR, Bilderburgers, Trilateral Commission -- the New World Order (tilting tinfoil hat.)
MEMO TO FREEPERS:
Do NOT look for a Scalia/Thomas model to chosen AT ALL -- this first SC selection was THE selection in which to make it and fight for.
So would Chuckie Schumer. Go ahead. Ask the candidate and see what it gets you.
It seems like he is a little old to have a 4 year old son. Makes me wonder -- trophy wife? second family?