Posted on 09/05/2005 2:27:28 PM PDT by Constitution Restoration Act
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.