Posted on 09/14/2005 12:39:41 AM PDT by konaice
The Chief Justice nominee has rejected strict interpretations of the Constitution. That should hearten the Left and Corporate America alike
...snip...
EYE ON THE FUTURE. Then, sounding like O'Connor, Roberts dropped a bombshell on conservatives who believe in a narrow interpretation of the Constitution: "Judges take a more practical and pragmatic approach when deciding the rule of law," rather than sticking to a strict philosophy, Roberts said. "The Framers chose to use broad language [in the Constitution], and we should take them at their word."
Under friendly but persistent probing from Senators Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) and Orin Hatch (R-Utah), Roberts dismissed the "strict constructionist" and "textualist" approaches to constitutional law, which keep the powers of the federal government on a shorter leash. "I do not have an over-arching judicial philosophy I bring to every case," Roberts said. "I tend to look at a case from the bottom up." Then he hammered the point home again, to the consternation of Senator Lindsey Graham (R-N.C.): "The Framers were aware they were drafting for the future."
(Excerpt) Read more at businessweek.com ...
"Roberts did not cross and fight."
Bork did and he was "Borked."
You seem to be a frustrated "one issue" person who does not understand how the game is played. Accordingly, you are destined to be perpetually frustrated.
IMO if our Federal government is to be as intended --one of
few and enumerated powers-- then if a Right is not spelled out in the Constitution-that right most certainly does exist but the Federal government Has NO power over it.
If NOT spelled out in the Constitution the "Right" belongs to the States-- Or if not spelled out in State constitutions belongs to the people and State and Federal governments have no power to regulate.Where the Constitution is silent then the Federal Government most certainly ought remain silent. We run into problems when
we have the supreme Court (or any inferior Court) Pretending to uphold the Constitution-when in fact they are
rewriting the Constitution-- "Wall of separation"myth case
in point.
From Robert's testimony:
They [the founders] didn't write the equal protection clause in such narrow terms. They wrote more generally. That may have been a particular problem motivating them, but they chose to use broader terms, and we should take them at their word, so that is perfectly appropriate to apply the equal protection clause to issues of gender and other types of discrimination beyond the racial discrimination that was obviously the driving force behind it."
The broad language lends itself to recontruction with ease.
Only those rights specified in the Bill of Rights should be protected by the federal govrenment and none of the others like the right to life, liberty etc?
Does Roberts have 55 Republicans in the Senate?IMO the
Republicans have NOT controlled House or Senate since
World War Twice and the establishment of that organization
patterned and established as a reflection of the failed
soviet Communist system.(th eanti-American U.N.) IMO Bush
has Never acted against the U.N. but consistantly has acted
to build up-empower that anti-American organization.Given the manifested Republican leadership under Bush -- I must
ask does Roberts have 55 Republicans? And I cannot count
Snow-and certain others as anything but RINO.
Obviously, there is tension between the ninth and tenth amendments, some would even say they are mutually exclusive.
I agree with you, if I understand you correctly, the ninth is judiciable, but in every case, that tension is real and not easily decided.
Target Hit!
spoken like a TRUE CARPETBAGGER.
our federal government ceased to protect the right to life
when they were cowed by the corrupt Warren Court that
decided Roe v.Wade--and Doe v.Bolton creating a suspect
right to privacy in the shedding of innocent blood.Our constitution(not merely the attached Bill of rights) was
drafted to empower the national government to protect those
rights recognized as a gift from god ( not from Governments) enumerated in the Declaration of Independence.
The Federal Government has chosen to ignore the Declaration
ANd prefers to understand it as boreing old history modern
school children need not even be taught.
Are you referring to my comments regarding the ease of reconstuction (specifically the 14th), or the tension between the 9th and tenth amendment?
Screw the game and how it is played -IMO we need declare a
free fire zone. Calvin is pissin' on the game and how it is
played.
IMO I must agree with Brevard Hand on the questionable 14th.
He did raise serious and credible questions about the
ratification of that amendment. And especially of how it has
been abused by the despots in black robes of late. And I did speak to the objecitonable "reconstruction."
Perhaps we disagree on the issue of reconstruction of the 14th. My view is identical with Mr. Roberts, and I am happy that he claried his view.
Awe is the word...as in, "Ahh, not the Sh@t again!"
Get a clue will you?
The attacks NOW are the only ones that can hurt him. Once he's on the court NOTHING anyone can say makes a difference anymore.
So you think one speech in a senate hearing room would solve anything? Because that ONE Speech would be the end of it.
Does the fact that he would never sit on the supreme court if he made that speech ever enter into your equation?
Until (and even after) the Republican majority in the senate greatly exceeds its current level, you can not take the "Damn the torpedoes, Full speed ahead" approach, and expect to get anywhere other than sunk.
But if you really believe that going down in a blaze of glory before even getting to decide one single case from the bench is important, why not write Bush and Roberts a letter?
Well that's good to hear Roberts!
"On every question of construction [of the Constitution] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Justice William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p 322
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.