Joseph Farah: I was wrong about Roberts

World Net Daily ^ | 9/13/05 | Joseph Farah

[mickie]

I wholeheartedly agree with your points of view.......well put!

[arnoldknox]

You may be on to something...

[RGSpincich]

Farrah or Farah? Anybody ever seen them in a room at the same time?

[Aetius]

I suspect both Stevens and Ginsberg will do whatever they can to hold on long enough to see if Hillary (or whoever else the Dem candidate might be) wins in 2008. I just have a bad feeling that this is so, and that as a result it will require another Republican victory in 2008 to truly reshape the Courts and return sanity to them. I doubt that Stevens and Ginsberg would be able to hold out any longer than that, so they are marshalling their energy for the next 3 yrs.


I agree that the dynamics are different now so that leftwing attacks on a good judge will not go unanswered as they were with Bork. But I still feel that the GOP is missing a golden opportunity to engage the public about judicial philosophy. To say we want judges who won't legislate from the bench is not enough, as even the Democrats lie and say that. We need to be ready to give examples of how the Court has run roughshod over values and traditions shared by the majority of Americans on the most flimsy and ridiculous of Constitutional grounds. We need to point out the truth that demonized judges like Scalia and Thomas will not impose anything on anyone, but instead would leave matters not protected and elevated above the normal democratic processes by the Constitution to those proper processes for resolution; in other words that they'd actually let the people decide whereas the Left's preferred judges are the ones imposing out-of-the-mainstream resolutions on one issue after another. We need to point out that the Courts were never intended to have the tremendous power they have given themselves.

Basically, we need to do more than just bemoan activist judges and we need to do more than defend judges strictly on a resume-type of qualification basis, and we need to embrace a debate over philosophy and not hide behind procedural points like 'Ginsberg didn't have to answer those questions.'


As of now I do not belive Roberts to be a liberal. The hysterical attacks on him by the Left do make me feel better, but again, weren't similar charges leveled at Souter? So yes, it is a plus, but its hardly definitive.

[wireman]

"There was once a time when I took Joe Farah seriesly"

Yeah, he is such a looser!

[Allan]

I haven't been following any of this tedious nomination business very closely
but I suspect what Joseph Farah is saying is
that John Roberts is The Man Without Qualities a la Robert Musil.

i.e. the Ideal Ultimate and Universal 21st century man.

I have a suspicion Joseph Farah may be correct.

[JackTom]

From todays hearing I can say that John Roberts is certainly not Breyer at least as far as it concerns aplication of international law to interpret US Constitution.

When answering such a question from Senator Kyl, Roberts was quite straightforward in criticising such a practice. He said that it opens a door for judicial activism by judges with certain legal agenda as "one can always find friends in the crowd" i.e. you can always find a legal system somewhere in the world that supports your point of view. Plus using international law as some kind of precedent makes interpreting US Constitution subject to decision of foreign politicians (who write these laws) who were not elected by US citizens nor answer to them.

In my opinion that was actually one of the more important statements during todays hearings.

[Trust but Verify]

Re: Lazarus, beware of how he's billed in this column by Farah: A 'close friend' of Roberts. Here is a Q & A from July where Lazarus acts like he knows no more about Roberts than anyone here.

Close friend, my eye.

Link to Wash Post Q & A

[demkicker]

I used to read him daily, but he's been wrong too many times and he's the biggest peesimist and defeatist there is on the so called right.

My Answer To Anything Joseph Farah Says:

[harrowup]

Bush should have picked someone who believes in Original Intent instead of a living Constitution.

1. I seriously doubt that President Bush even knows the difference, let alone cares; he does what he is told now by his keepers.

2. If you take Original Intent to its logical foundation you would not have the Bill of Rights and women still couldn't vote and ... well, you get the drift?

[Phsstpok]

This diatribe is one of the most transparent attempts to sandbag liberals I've ever seen.

It sound suspiciously like Brer Rabbit crying "whatever you do, don't throw me into that briar patch."

"Please, oh please, don't you dare confirm Roberts for the supreme court! It would be ruinous for us conservatives."

Really. I mean it this time!

[I got the rope]

I'm not comfortable with Roberts yet...then again I haven't been keeping up with this like I should.

What's your take on him Jim?

[ladyinred]

I no longer wonder what Joseph's real agenda is. Sheesh.

[Zeroisanumber]

Well, if Joe Farah is against him, that makes me feel better about him.

[Windsong]

Cool!

[MikefromOhio]

Farah will continue to be a complete loon and dumbarse...

I honestly can't wait to see what this idiot puts down next :)

[F16Fighter]

"Seven of the nine Justices were put on the SCOTUS by Repuiblican Presidents. It's no wonder that we think they may be about to shaft the conservative movement once again."

Worth reminding the faithful who our worst enemy is....

...Our very own GOP!

[ARridgerunner]

It doesn't matter one way or another.

It's very late.

[ShihanRob]

2. If you take Original Intent to its logical foundation you would not have the Bill of Rights and women still couldn't vote and ... well, you get the drift?

You say that like it's a bad thing. ;-) Rob