Posted on 09/05/2005 2:27:28 PM PDT by Constitution Restoration Act
To: OpEd Editor
Contact: Eugene Delgaudio, 703-901-2247
WASHINGTON, Sept. 5 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Following is an op-ed by Eugene Delgaudio, president of Public Advocate of the United States:
Why "Chief Justice Roberts" is a Mistake for Bush and Conservatives (REVISED for Chief Justice Appointment)
By Eugene Delgaudio
As the Roberts confirmation hearings loom, the vast majority of the conservative movement has lined up squarely behind the nominee. Once again they seem to blindly trust a Republican president to appoint an originalist to the Court. However, Public Advocate of the United States, the national pro-family group I lead, has taken the difficult (but necessary) step of opposing his nomination to the Court and especially to the position of Chief Justice.
The problem with Roberts is not that his work on behalf of the homosexual lobby in the Romer case proves that he is going to be another Souter - it's that it doesn't prove he's not going to be.
Consider the Clinton appointees. Was there any doubt as to what kind of justice liberal ACLU lawyer Ruth Bader Ginsburg would be? When Clinton later appointed former Ted Kennedy staffer, Stephen Breyer, did anyone honestly think that he might be a Scalia in Souter clothing? When Democrat presidents make nominations we know what we are getting: liberal, activist judges.
However, when a Republican president is making the calls, buyers beware! Of the nine justices currently serving on the Court, seven were Republican appointees. Of these, three have been reliable originalists who faithfully interpret the meaning of the Constitution in a manner consistent with the text. The other four are activists who creatively manipulate the Constitution to fit their political agendas.
Conservatives won't fight for good nominees and won't stand up against poor or unproven nominees. When the left viciously attacked conservatives Robert Bork and Douglas Ginsburg, conservatives failed the challenge and the Ted Kennedys of the world bullied us into Anthony Kennedy, who has since written opinions citing foreign law in order to overturn democratically enacted American laws.
When the elder Bush appointed a "stealth candidate" known for his calm and inoffensive demeanor, liberals were left without a target. Oh, the genius of the Bush Administration. Sure enough David Souter sailed through the confirmation process and took his life-long seat on the Court.
In the immortal words of Homer Simpson, "DOH!"
Sadly, the examples don't stop there. The current dean of the activists, John Paul Stevens was a Ford appointee. And it was Ronald Reagan who appointed Sandra Day O'Connor, whose swing vote has provided us with dazzling jurisprudence like "well you can show the Ten Commandments outside, but put it under air conditioning and you have yourself a First Amendment violation."
Nixon batted .333 in Supreme Court appointments, Ford .000, Reagan .333 (.500 if you include the promotion to Rehnquist), George H.W. Bush .500, and Bill Clinton a solid 1.000… for the activist team of course.
Our failure to demand originalists has cost us dearly. It is because of Republican appointees that Roe v. Wade is still "settled law" (Casey), that states can no longer pass laws to protect family values (Romer and Lawrence), that foreign laws have legal standing to override American laws (Lawrence and Roper), and that people can view online virtual child pornography and do so in public libraries (Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition and U.S. v. American Library Association).
Now George W. Bush gets his turn at the plate and has chosen Judge John Roberts. While we were initially optimistic about the Roberts nomination, it soon became clear that his credentials as a conservative were not as impeccable as we were first lead to believe.
In 1996, as a partner in the D.C. law firm, Hogan and Hartson, Roberts was complicit in the successful bid to overturn the democratically adopted law in Colorado that protected families from courts unilaterally enacting the agenda of the radical homosexual lobby from the bench. What is worse is that this supposed originalist volunteered to do the work for free!
When the L.A. Times made this known, neither Roberts nor the White House had an acceptable explanation. In order to keep conservatives on board and in line we were given excuses like "he only helped them for a few hours," or "he was a partner and was expected to help with all the firm's appellate litigation." Yet the Times confirmed that he was never forced to take on the pro bono work and that he volunteered to do it of his own volition, which Roberts never refuted.
Neither this nor the other revelations that challenge his conservative credentials prove that Roberts will be an activist. However, it is more essential then ever that the new Chief Justice be a proven originalist who will stand up to the increasingly activist majority.
Why go with another "stealth candidate" with little track record on important issues as a judge who may have an easy confirmation fight, when there are the Edith Joneses, Michael Luttigs, and Samuel Alitos of the world who have already proven themselves on the bench and are worth fighting for?
While most conservative leaders continue to be "team players" after being asked by their friends in the White House to trust the administration, the new Chief Justice could serve as the figurehead for the Court for the next three decades. Public Advocate has decided that this is just too important. Enough is enough.
If the National Organization for Women would have discovered that Breyer had done pro bono work for pro-lifers in Casey, do we really think that they would have shut up and rolled over?
It is past time that conservatives took a couple pages from our opponent's playbook and choose to fight. We cannot simply rely on trust alone for a lifetime appointment as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. The burden is on Roberts and the White House to prove that he is an originalist, not on groups like Public Advocate to prove he's not.
Now that the nomination has been made, the burden rests with Senators and the American public. It is essential that conservatives demand that their Senators ask Roberts the tough questions plaguing this nomination before deciding to throw their support behind the nominee.
Speak now or forever hold your peace.
---
Eugene Delgaudio is the President of Public Advocate of the United States, a nationwide pro-family group based in Northern Virginia that has been active in the conservative movement for over twenty-five years. He lives in Sterling, Virginia with his wife and children.
http://www.usnewswire.com/
-0-
/© 2005 U.S. Newswire 202-347-2770/
Roberts subverted Reagan
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/artic...RTICLE_ID=45813
Souter in Roberts' clothing
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/artic...RTICLE_ID=45363
Supreme Court Nominee John G. Roberts, Jr.:Wrong Man, Wrong Place, Wrong Time!
http://www.jewsformorality.org/roberts050808.htm
Washington, DC -- The decision that Judge Roberts helped the radical homosexual lobby secure in Romer v. Evans lead conservative activists and scholars alike to call for the impeachment of the six Supreme Court Justices who voted to overturn the pro-family Colorado law, as reported by covenantnews.com and theamericanview.com.
“If this decision was bad enough that conservatives considered pushing for the impeachment of the ‘Romer Six’ then it ought to be bad enough to convince conservatives to not let the man who volunteered to do free work to win the case receive a free-pass in the confirmation process,” said Public Advocate President Eugene Delgaudio. “Conservatives have stood idly by while liberals like Ginsburg, Bryer, Souter, Kennedy, and O’Connor where confirmed, it is time that we stood up and forced these nominees to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they are originalists who will interpret the law not legislate from the bench.”
The Regent Law Review article written by Steven W. Fitschen examined and supported the option of impeaching judges for issuing blatantly unconstitutional rulings, and used the Romer decision as the example. Justice Scalia wrote a scathing dissent in the case and pointed out that “[the Court’s] opinion has no foundation in American constitutional law, and barely pretends to.”
Ann Coulter will bust a couple of arteries over this one.
Kelo and the 14th Amendment: Exploring a Constitutional Koan
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1467657/posts
I think it important that FReepers start composing legitimate questions to be asked of Judge Roberts:
What does Judge Roberts believe was the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment, was it to incorporate the Bill of Rights against the States or was it to bar racial discrimination by State and local government?
Does incorporation apply to the whole Bill of Rights? If not, does he subscribe to selective incorporation? What does he regard to be the exceptions?
Upon what bases does Tenth Amendment Federalism outweigh the Federal power to determine what constitutes equal protection?
Does he think that a headnote should carry the force of precedent if it has long been cited as such?
What are his standards for determining settled law versus overturning it?
How does he weigh the establishment clause against free exercise? If the establishment clause applies only to Congress, is it legitimate to use it to override a State Constitution?
Given that Islam specifically mandates imposition of Sharia law in conflict with the Constitution, what are the limits to the free exercise clause?
Does the free exercise clause permit sedition or treason?
What limits are there upon free association?
Do the President and the Senate have the lawful power to conclude treaties the scope of which entails enforcement powers that exceed those enumerated in the Constitution? If such can be proven, is said treaty void?
2 posted on 08/21/2005 7:02:30 AM PDT by Carry_Okie (There are people in power who are truly evil.)
Our opponents are losing one election after another. We do not want to imitate them on substance, style, tactics, or strategy. If someone thinks other wise than he or she is a political utter fool.
I have doubts about Roberts. However, they are somewhat relieved when NARAL, Ralph "hairplug" Neas, moveon, Senator Depends, the swimmer Kennedy, Senators from the People's Republic of California... all trash Roberts.
I'm not convinced that Roberts is the conservative I'd like to be in charge of the supremes.
I'd like someone who is proud of his stands on case law and not try to slip in through "stealth stands".
So anyone other than an overtly outright partisan in favor of your select agenda is a mistake.
Why should the world stop just for you in this manner?
He should have nominated Thomas as CJUS....or Scalia.
Roberts is a pig in a poke, and frankly, I doubt Bush has the cojones to nominate a true conservative. Don't give me this "He's from Texas" crap, either....he comes from a northeast family, his dad is a big influence on him and we all know that G.H.W. Bush was NO conservative! G.W. Bush has been good on the War, but he's been abysmal on borders, trade, and his attorney general is just a male Janet Reno with a Latin surname! With that kind of a record, what evidence is there that Roberts will be a conservative, let alone an originalist?
Ann Coulter already declared she was at "war" with Bush, maybe she'll declare a nuclear attack on the administration now that he's nominated for Chief.
I'm standing behind the President and Roberts as I DO believe he's a Constitutionalist. I resent this person declaring that support to be BLIND. I would NOT have willfully and enthusiastically lined up behind Clements, as my demeanor when she was rumored indicated. Maybe this person should accept people consciously DISAGREE on merit and principle, not because we're sheep.
From what I have read, Roberts is a partisan Republican. He clerked for Rehnquist, was a member of the Federalist Society, worked under Reagan and Bush Sr., and has the trust of President Bush.
Besides his pro-bono work for homosexual rights, I haven't seen anything to show he isn't a conservative.
"his attorney general is just a male Janet Reno with a Latin surname!"
LOL!
They also attacked Souter. Think about that as well.
There is only so much abuse and betrayal that social conservatives can take from the party they have helped elect for over twenty years now, and the "they have nowhere else to go" dynamic will not hold forever. If Bush has stabbed conservatives in the back with Roberts, then I wonder if even the specter of President Hillary would be enough to spark them into overcoming their disappointment with the GOP and turn out in 2008.
43 would be the optimistic maximum.
Another option that requires only a simple majority + Bush.
http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/judiciary/hju94458.000/hju94458_0.HTM#45
Notes on the Testimony Of Martin H. Redish, Louis And Harriet Ancel Professor Of Law And Public Policy, Northwestern Law School, June 24, 2004
Professor Redish is a nationally renowned authority on the subject of Federal jurisdiction. He received his A.B. With honors, with highest honors, in political science from the University of Pennsylvania and his J.D. Magna cum laude from Harvard law school. He has been described in a review of his book, The Federal Courts in the Political Order, as quote, ''without a doubt the foremost scholar on issues of Federal court jurisdiction in this generation,'' unquote.Professor Redish is the author or coauthor of 70 articles and 13 books, including Federal Jurisdiction: Tensions in the Allocation of Federal Power. He was recently included on a list of the 100 most cited legal scholars of all time.
Section 1.
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.
There are absolutely no federal cases constitutionally excluded from state court jurisdictional authority. The State courts provide an adequate forum to interpret and enforce Federal law, including the Federal Constitution. State courts are empowered and obligated under article VI, clause 2, the supremacy clause, to interpret and enforce the Constitution. The Constitution didn't require Congress to create the lower federal courts (Madisonian Compromise). Congress did create the lower Federal courts immediately, but it is well established in the case law that that power to, from time to time, ordain and establish the lower Federal courts includes the power to abolish the lower Federal courts, and the greater power to abolish the lower Federal courts logically subsumes within it the power to leave the courts in existence, but limit their jurisdictions. The Supreme Court has proceeded on the logical assumption that if Congress possessed discretion not to create lower federal courts in the first place, it also has the power to abolish the lower federal courts. See, e.g., Lockerty v. Phillips, 319 U.S. 182 (1943); Sheldon v. Sill, 49 U.S. (8 How.) 441 (1850). Since it has been assumed that Congress possesses the authority to abolish the lower federal courts completely, the Court has assumed that it has the logically lesser power to ''abolish'' them as to only certain cases by limiting their jurisdiction.
Section 2.
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
In Ex parte McCardle, 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 506 (1868), the Supreme Court recognized the unlimited authority explicitly authorized in the text. There are no internal constitutional limits, no limits in article III on Congress' power. Its power is plenary. There are external constitutional limits on this power; the Due Process Clause, and the equal protection directive in the fifth amendment apply, but are satisfied by state courts which Congress can't affect. The text, and internal logic of the Constitution allows Congress to combine its power over the article III lower courts and the Supreme Court under the exceptions clause, the end result is that it can completely exclude Federal judicial power over pretty much any issue, as long as the State courts remain available. The case law agrees with the Constitution in this respect.
I have had concerns about Roberts from the get-go. I doubt he is a conservative, and holds to conservative ideals with regards to the COTUS.
I am with Ann on this one. Isn't it requird that someone post a picture of Ann?
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.