QUICK LINKS
Job Description for the Supreme Court?
Now that the John Roberts nomination has been public for about a week or so, nearly everyone has weighed in with their opinion.
One way to learn more about this nominee is to look at the list of those who oppose him.
Moveon.org's Executive Director Eli Pariser wrote,
President Bush nominated this corporate lawyer to add to the right-wing activist block of Scalia and Thomas. Instead of a mainstream jurist with a distinguished career as someone who protects the rights of the American people, Bush choose another right-wing crony.
Evidently, there is some misunderstanding as to what the role of the Supreme Court should be. Rather than to serve as defense lawyers for certain interest groups, are they not charged to rightly interpret the Constitution?
_______________________________
Gary Randall
President
Faith and Freedom Network
____________________________
NARAL, People for the American Way, Howard Dean, and a long list of others are following the same talking points.
But no one has communicated the liberal secularist view of the role of the Supreme Court in more definitive terms than Edward Kennedy did in his floor statement. Quote:
The Senate’s role will be to establish clearly whose side John Roberts would be on if confirmed to the most powerful Court in the land.
Perhaps America would be better served if members of the Supreme Court were confirmed on the basis of their ability to interpret the Constitution.
Back in April 2005, Tim Russert (MSNBC) interviewed Supreme Court Justice, O'Connor, Scalia, and Kennedy. The mainstream press largely missed a statement that Justice Scalia made the following day.
I think what is going on is unprecedented in the difficulty of getting judicial nominations confirmed. I was nominated almost twenty years ago. I was known to be conservative in my policy views, but was known to be a good lawyer, an honest man, and somebody who could be fair and write an intelligent opinion. I was confirmed unanimously by the Senate. Now something very fundamental has changed. What we originalists think has changed, and we've been saying this for a long time, is that you cannot adopt a theory that the Constitution is evolving and the Supreme Court will tell you what it means from age to age.
While the mainstream press focused on a number of different angles of the story, only NPR got it right:
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia – anoriginalistwho believes the U.S. Constitution means what it meant at the time of the Founding Fathers adopted it.
Oh, the wisdom and simplicity of those Founding Fathers.
______________________
Gary Randall
President
Faith and Freedom Network
3 Comments:
the health insurance policy private
troops
troops
Post a Comment
<< Home