Under the law (re:John Roberts)

The Washington Times ^ | 7-27-07 | Bruce Fein

[JZelle]

Democratic Sens. Hillary Clinton of New York and Dianne Feinstein of California mistook justices for missionaries in elaborating their opposition to Judge John G. Roberts, Jr. as chief justice of the United States. Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg reinforced that mistake last week before the New York Bar Association by insinuating justices are anointed to "advance human rights or women's rights" as they see fit. Article III of the Constitution, however, confines the Supreme Court to the exercise of "judicial power," i.e., interpreting the Constitution and laws in accord with their original meaning. Not a syllable hints a justice is empowered to trump the law in a quest for higher morality akin to civil disobedience. Believers in justices under the law as opposed to apostles over the law are what separate champions and detractors of Judge Roberts. Mrs. Clinton decried the nominee as a threat to "the already fragile Supreme Court majority for civil rights, voting rights and women's rights." But nothing in the Constitution directs justices to subordinate the law to advance that agenda. Take voting rights. Neither blacks nor women nor 18-year-olds were guaranteed the franchise by the original Constitution. The 15th, 19th and 26th Amendments, proposed and ratified as prescribed in Article V, were required to prohibit racial, gender and age discrimination in voting qualifications. But under Mrs. Clinton's logic, the Supreme Court was remiss in not decreeing the franchise amendments without the bother of Article V because "civil rights, voting rights, and women's rights" were at stake. Honorable ends justify extraconstitutional means.

[Personal Responsibility]

Hillary is upset because Roberts will not legislate the entire Democratic / Liberal / Moonbat agenda from the bench. What else is new.

[Mr. Blonde]

Have to disagree as usual that there is not an implied right to privacy under the 9th amendment.
I also don't think that the constitution barred certain groups from voting so much as it didn't guarantee their right to vote. The states then used that to decide who could vote themselves.

[JusticeForAll76]

As originally understood, the 14 th amendment could not be used to correct for discrimination against women. John Roberts has said, and I agree, that the 14th needs to be interpreted way more generally that the framers may have thought at the time.

[JusticeForAll76]

As originally understood, the 14 th amendment could not be used to correct for discrimination against women. John Roberts has said, and I agree, that the 14th needs to be interpreted way more generally that the framers may have thought at the time.

[William Tell]

JusticeForAll76 said: "John Roberts has said, and I agree, that the 14th needs to be interpreted way more generally that the framers may have thought at the time. "

I wasn't able to listen to all of the hearings. Could you elaborate on what Roberts said about the Fourteenth and what you believe his statements mean? Thanks.

[JusticeForAll76]

John Roberts said:

"There are some who may think they're being originalists who will tell you, Well, the problem they [the framers] were getting at were the rights of the newly freed slaves. And so that's all that the equal protection clause applies to. But, in fact, they didn't write the equal protection clause in such narrow terms. They wrote more generally.... 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 man is not a strict constructionist, nor should anyone be.