Justice: Can Constitution Make It In Global Age? (

2003 WorldNetDaily.com ^ | July 7, 2003 | WND

[PatrioticAmerican]

As I posted on the other thread, this statement should be treated as an act of treason!

[pgyanke]

No. He should still be able to make comments freely as we all should be.

However, his judicial record should be examined in light of his recent statements and he should be impeached for rulings reflecting his lack of respect for the Constitution. Considering you don't have to look any farther than last week's rulings, this should be a simple task.

[harpseal]

If the Supreme Court of the USA does not stand up for the Second Ammendment then it is time to take it to the politicians. America has a Supreme law of the land see Article 5. Unless that is the case America might as well be any other backwater toilet.

[PatrioticAmerican]

"No. He should still be able to make comments freely as we all should be. "

A Supreme Court judge saying that his professional belief is that the United States should be subordinate to a foreign power is most certainly an act of treason!

A person of power advocating mutiny of the Constitution is not a harmless personal statement.

[pgyanke]

Speech, including political speech by a government official, is protected by the first amendment. We can see many examples in this country now where a majority of liberals on specific courts take conservative ideals and conservatives to task for their beliefs.

We can, and should, have a free and open discourse on policy... including the interaction of treaties, domestic laws and international norms.

What no one can do is use their official position to impose laws contrary to the Constitution through their own personal fiat. That has been done in numerous instances, including last week.

The Constitution is a living instrument (contrary to what some seem to espouse on FR). However, there is a means given to Constitutional amendment. It is not the means employed by the courts. Where they rule outside of their Constitutional duties, they should be tried and impeached. Statements such as quoted in this article are merely character references for the proceedings.

[BureaucratusMaximus]

To do that, however, the Republicans in the Senate need to "go nuclear" on the Democrats there, to break forever the application of the filibuster rule to judicial nominees.

Yeah...like that will happen. You provide the crow and dry ice...I'll freepmail you my address just in case hell freezes.

[x]

Breyer's Oxford background makes him particularly susceptible to internationalist nonsense.

Constitutions do have to be read and interpreted. Judges do have to decide if the Internet is a form of interstate commerce, if it's a form of free speech, and other questions occasioned by new technology. But these justices are going to make the attitudes of their own millieu predominate over other people's understandings. What is thinkable or unthinkable in Berkeley or Cambridge differs widely from what is thinkable or unthinkable in Peoria or Boise.

[Jeff Head]

O'Connor, Breyer, Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginzburg, David H. Souter and John Paul Stevens, who tend to believe in the concept of a "living Constitution" subject to changes in public opinion and interpretation.

Bunch of traitorous revisionists IMHO.

[Squantos]

Agree.........Hope yer day of independence was a great one Jeff for you and your family.

Stay Safe !

[Jeff Head]

Thanks bro., it was. We spent it with the in-laws over in Idaho Falls on the eastern side of the state (about 300 miles away) and had a great time. Got home last night.

I'm a very fortunate individual who gets along very well with my in-laws. I have the utmost respect for them.. They are great people and they raised a wonderful daughter whom I was honored to meet and make my wife over 25 years ago now.