[razorback-bert]

Well !#*)(^$^&*$, the bozos are getting brave enought to admit our constitution isn't good enought for the world.


Our constitution is about limiting govenment, not anything else.

[Congressman Billybob]

Justice Breyer is a jurisprudential moron, and it is dangerous to have such people on the bench. It is not the proper business of the Justices of the Supreme Court to read foreign laws, and then decide what is best for the people of the United States. Writing laws is the business of the Congress and the state legislatures. It is NOT the business of the courts.

And as for whether the Constitution can survive into the future, Breyer is doing the best he can to kill it now. If and when the Constitution should be amended, it provides the methods by which the PEOPLE, not the unelected JUDGES, can make those changes.

Breyer has no clue as to what it means for the US to have a written Cosntitution that is the collective voice of the people of the US. Breyer has principles, which happen to be dead wrong. He cannot be removed from the bench. Therefore he needs to be constantly outnumbered by Justices who DO understand what it means to enforce a written Constitution.

And that brings us to Justice O'Connor. She has no principles. She votes for whatever feels good, which is why she flips back and forth from competent decisions to incompetent ones. For health reasons, she will be gone from the Court not long after McConnell v. FEC (campaign finance case) is argued on September 8th, and decided about two months after that.

If O'Connor is replaced with a Justice who actually understands and respects the Constitution, Breyer will be appropriately isolated. 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.

IMHO.

Congressman Billybob

Latest article, now up FR, "Ah-nold Will Win."

[ClearCase_guy]

Breyer had held that a ruling by the European Court of Human Rights that homosexuals had a fundamental right to privacy in their sexual behavior showed that the Supreme Court's earlier decision to the contrary was unfounded in the Western tradition.

That's quite a leap. I believe this man could leap over the Grand Canyon. I wonder ... had the Third Reich conquered all of Europe, and had the High Court of the Third Reich decreed that all men are not created qual -- would Breyer agree that the concept of equal rights was (therefore) unfounded in the Western Tradition?

[Ahban]

What more evidence do we need that this man lacks the understanding to sit on the Supreme Court? Impeach him!

Maybe the next nominee will be Arlen "Scottish Law" Spectere?

[the gillman@blacklagoon.com]

Our Constitution has been repealed.

[pgyanke]

If ever there was a reason for the impeachment of a SCOTUS judge, this is it. He took an oath to "support and defend the CONSTITUTION..." yet here he admits that he is conforming it to the mores of the world.

Although we may have disagreed in the past, this makes it very clear that he is actively fighting against our Constitution, not writing simple disagreements on matters of law.

[pgyanke]

Please, someone with more internet savvy (and connections), forward this to Rush, Sean Hannity, Michael Medved, Mark Stein, et al. This has to get A LOT of attention!

[m&maz]

Every day it becomes more obvious that some on the supreme court not only do not understand their role in government, they do not understand the role of our constitution. I personally am glad that our constitution doesn't fit in with the idea of global governance. The globalists do not recognize the principles of personal rights, private property, or any of the God given "unalienable Rights" that our founders recognized as inseparable parts of the human condition when they pledged their "lives, fortunes and sacred honor" to the cause of fredom 203 years ago..

[sergeantdave]

If a justice can page through foreign law and find some tidbit there that overwhelms American law, we are lost. It means that we are entering the era of complete arbitrary and capricious rulings, meaning there is no law. That, of course, is the way of all dictatorships, where the law is whatever I say the law is. People will be arrested and charged with violating laws they didn't know existed. This is how the gulags and camps were filled in totalitarian countries.

We're not about to be shipped out yet, but the signposts are in.

[TheBattman]

Already posted:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/941589/posts

[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.