Skip to comments.
Breyer: Court Should Aid Minority Rights
NewsMax ^
| 12/3/06
| NewsMax
Posted on 12/03/2006 1:04:49 PM PST by wagglebee
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-92 next last
To: wagglebee
Judge Roberts:
" If the law is on the side of the little guy, I will vote for the little guy. If the law is on the side of the big guy, I will vote for the big guy.
That is what the rule of law is."
To: wagglebee
Pointing to the example of campaign finance, Breyer also said the court was right in 2003 to uphold on a 5-4 vote the McCain-Feingold law that banned unlimited donations to political parties. Acknowledging that critics had a point in saying the law violates free speech, Breyer said the limits were constitutional because it would make the electoral process more fair and democratic to the little guy who isn't tied to special interests. "You don't want one person's speech, that $20 million giver, to drown out everybody else's. So if we want to give a chance to the people who have only $1 and not $20 million, maybe we have to do something to make that playing field a little more level in terms of money," he said
Gosh! What a statement coming from a man that at times is the single swing vote on so many things. He wants to protect the little guy from the big guy while in reality Justice Breyer is himself the 300 lb. gorilla mandating his way of thinking upon the whole country. He's the unlimate "big guy", the person who all by himself is super "powerful". He is so powerful that he can throw out his own employment agreement (The US Constitution) and there is nothing anyone can do about it.
22
posted on
12/03/2006 1:20:41 PM PST
by
isthisnickcool
(If you can't light a fire in the vacuum of space what's the deal with the Sun?)
To: wagglebee
"The only group in America that is "too powerful" is the unelected judiciary that is granting itself powers that clearly violate the Constitution."
To: wagglebee
24
posted on
12/03/2006 1:21:43 PM PST
by
yochanan
To: wagglebee
"Justice Stephen G. Breyer says the Supreme Court must promote the political rights of minorities and look beyond the Constitution's text when necessary to ensure that "no one gets too powerful.""
In other words, Justice Breyer has attained, of his own accord, some extra-Consitutional power that allows him to look beyond the Constitution's meaning and intent in order to limit the "power" of other entities. My questions is, where is the check on this self-proclaimed, self-assigned power by the Justice?
To: wagglebee
There's no way this guys view will prevail in the Seattle and Louisville school cases.
And, I'm really grateful for that...
26
posted on
12/03/2006 1:22:41 PM PST
by
Mariner
To: AmericaUnited
Breyer said the limits were constitutional because it would make the electoral process more fair and democratic to the little guy ... Note to Breyer: Ask your Chief Justice what the heck your proper role is.
To: wagglebee
I guess Breyer will be voting for Hussein Obama in the 2008 election.
28
posted on
12/03/2006 1:30:13 PM PST
by
sgtbono2002
(The fourth estate is a fifth column.)
To: wagglebee
Someone should read the Constitution to him. No where is the word "democracy" or any derivation thereof used.
29
posted on
12/03/2006 1:31:09 PM PST
by
PghBaldy
(Reporter: Are you surprised? Nancy Pelosi: No. My eyes always look like this.)
To: wagglebee
ah, I see. so if you don't like what is there, make it up. That is exactly what our founding fathers had in mind. < /sarcasm >
30
posted on
12/03/2006 1:31:31 PM PST
by
Big Guy and Rusty 99
(proud sponsor of the "helmets for democrats" foundation)
To: wagglebee
In his interview, Breyer argued that in some cases it wouldn't make sense to strictly follow the Constitution because phrases such as "freedom of speech" are vague. Judges must look at the real-world context not focus solely on framers' intent, as Scalia has argued because society is constantly evolving, he said.
If it's not his job to follow the Constitution then it's time for him to find another job.
To: Texas_Jarhead
I quote article 3, section 3 of the Constitution when I say, "of"
32
posted on
12/03/2006 1:34:09 PM PST
by
Big Guy and Rusty 99
(proud sponsor of the "helmets for democrats" foundation)
To: wagglebee
it wouldn't make sense to strictly follow the Constitution
look beyond the Constitution's text when necessary Impeach the buffoon, NOW!
33
posted on
12/03/2006 1:35:22 PM PST
by
Just A Nobody
(I - LOVE - my attitude problem! NEVER AGAIN...Support our Troops! Beware the ENEMEDIA)
To: wagglebee
"..... and look beyond the Constitution's text when necessary" - Breyer
In the minds of leftists judges (like Breyer) "when necessary" happens every other seconds.
34
posted on
12/03/2006 1:35:58 PM PST
by
Mr. Mojo
To: AndyTheBear
If I sue the powerful SCOTUS justice Stephen Breyer, will the SCOTUS make sure that I win?
35
posted on
12/03/2006 1:36:59 PM PST
by
AmishDude
(I coined "Senator Ass" to describe Jim Webb. He may have already used it as a character in a novel.)
To: wagglebee
>"no one gets too powerful."
In other words, no purpose for a majority since majority cannot rule, only the courts can rule.
36
posted on
12/03/2006 1:37:32 PM PST
by
AZRepublican
("The degree in which a measure is necessary can never be a test of the legal right to adopt it.")
To: taxesareforever
As Justice Scalia and others have correctly pointed out, when "We the People" determine that the Constitution needs to be amended, then "We the People" are empowered to do so. There is NO Constitutional provision for the Supreme Court to amend or alter the Constitution in any way whatsoever.
37
posted on
12/03/2006 1:38:57 PM PST
by
wagglebee
("We are ready for the greatest achievements in the history of freedom." -- President Bush, 1/20/05)
To: wagglebee
38
posted on
12/03/2006 1:39:38 PM PST
by
AZRepublican
("The degree in which a measure is necessary can never be a test of the legal right to adopt it.")
To: Just A Nobody
"Now," as in before the next Congress is taken over by the dims.
Sadly, that won't happen.
HF
39
posted on
12/03/2006 1:40:34 PM PST
by
holden
To: RegulatorCountry
"Congress shall pass no law abridging the freedom of speech" Only a leftist subversive could find this statement vague. And they find the same vagueness in the wording of the 2nd amendment, invariably interpreting it to mean that individuals don't have the right to keep and bear arms, only the state does.
40
posted on
12/03/2006 1:42:54 PM PST
by
Mr. Mojo
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-92 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson