This Is Not The Party Of Tolerance...
Senator Harry Reid stepped in it this past week. Not only did he call the president a "loser" (No Harry, that’s John Kerry), but he decided to launch an attack against Janice Rogers Brown. (Hat-Tip: Hugh Hewitt and The Las Vegas Review Journal.)
http://hughhewitt.com/
http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2005/May-07-Sat-2005/news/26464350.html
Reid took students through a primer of the five most-disputed judicial nominees, arguing some were opposed to the 1973 Roe v. Wade case legalizing abortion.
He charged others with trying to dismantle government programs like Social Security.
"I don't want them. I think they're bad people," Reid said of the nominees.
He described California Supreme Court Justice Janice Rogers Brown, one of the Bush nominees Republicans will probably float first for approval, as an African-American opposed by the Congressional Black Caucus.
"She is a woman who wants to take us back to the Civil War days," Reid said.
This is unacceptable to allow this man to slander a jurist as fine as Ms. Brown. She is a superb judge, having won reelection in California by a whooping 75%. And here’s a hint for Reid on Roe v. Wade: You can’t even interpret the proper role of the Senate, so shut the hell up on the high court case. Roe v. Wade should have never made it to the high court.
There is nothing whatsoever in the Constitution that addresses abortion. The federal government, under the Constitution, has no jurisdiction in State laws governing their respective citizens. They can’t even think about stepping in on a State’s rights issue unless the state has made a law that supercedes the State’s powers. A state may not declare war, or coin money. Those are jobs relegated to the federal government. The Supreme Court’s mishandled decision in that case has plagued this country for thirty-plus years (and isn’t about to be reversed anytime soon.) Roe v. Wade should have been remanded back to the court that appealed it to the high court, and their decision should have stood. Special interest pressure forced the decision from it’s legal roots to a more secular decision. (Well, the Framers didn’t know about abortion then...Nice excuse. It’s the same one used for firearms, too.)
And what programs are these judges, including Ms. Brown, in favor of "dismantling"? Can Reid be a bit more specific on that one? I have yet to hear a single jurist state they want to dismantle any government programs. (Sure would be nice if they could; there are plenty that need to be razed.) But no, to my knowledge, none of the ten that are being savaged by Reid and his ilk have ever stated that certain government programs need to go.
He doesn’t want them, but it’s not because "they’re bad people." Both Marcie have commented on this several times. (I believe she brought it up again this morning) The Democrats oppose these people because they adhere to Hamilton’s explanation of what the job of jurists on the judiciary actually is.
The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.--Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #78 (Emphasis mine.)
The Democrats don’t want judges that interpret the law. They want activists. They want judges that will look at the world, as a whole, and render decisions based on how the world is evolving. Three sitting Supreme Court justices have been reamed or chastised by people for deciding that foreign law has merit in cases they have looked at. Those justices are Breyer, Kennedy, and O’Connor. That sort of behavior is inexcusable. I don’t give a rip what the law in France says. I care only about US law, and it’s highest authority is the US Constitution. To inject foreign law into our judicial system through those on the high court—and any inferior courts—goes beyond the definition of "good Behaviour" that the Framers
established.
And frankly, who cares if the Congressional Black Caucus doesn’t like Ms. Brown? They don’t like a lot of people unless they have a liberal slant to them. But Reid’s tolerance appears to only go so far with Ms. Brown. She wants to take us back to the days of the Civil War? Please, senator. That was low, even for a loser like yourself. But the rhetoric that is being launched now, on the precipice of this issue in the Senate, is only going to be ratcheted up further. Again, specificity, senator? Where are her comments stating that she wants to return to those heady days of racist segregation where blacks were treated like second-class citizens? As it would only stand to reason that a return to such days would have her locked in irons, where is the logic in such a flagrantly false allegation?
Reid’s not one for brains. This is obvious. When Daschle was given the boot in 2004, everyone breathed a sigh of relief that there might have been some sanity that would come back to the Democrats in the Senate. Then Harry Reid stepped up, and showed us that they’re just as nutty, as inept, as incompetent as before. And Daschle should be proud of Reid. The Democrats found their replacement for him, and if Reid doesn’t watch carefully, he may soon find his headed handed to him by a GOP that is hearing their base screaming for the right thing to be done.
Publius II
Senator Harry Reid stepped in it this past week. Not only did he call the president a "loser" (No Harry, that’s John Kerry), but he decided to launch an attack against Janice Rogers Brown. (Hat-Tip: Hugh Hewitt and The Las Vegas Review Journal.)
http://hughhewitt.com/
http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2005/May-07-Sat-2005/news/26464350.html
Reid took students through a primer of the five most-disputed judicial nominees, arguing some were opposed to the 1973 Roe v. Wade case legalizing abortion.
He charged others with trying to dismantle government programs like Social Security.
"I don't want them. I think they're bad people," Reid said of the nominees.
He described California Supreme Court Justice Janice Rogers Brown, one of the Bush nominees Republicans will probably float first for approval, as an African-American opposed by the Congressional Black Caucus.
"She is a woman who wants to take us back to the Civil War days," Reid said.
This is unacceptable to allow this man to slander a jurist as fine as Ms. Brown. She is a superb judge, having won reelection in California by a whooping 75%. And here’s a hint for Reid on Roe v. Wade: You can’t even interpret the proper role of the Senate, so shut the hell up on the high court case. Roe v. Wade should have never made it to the high court.
There is nothing whatsoever in the Constitution that addresses abortion. The federal government, under the Constitution, has no jurisdiction in State laws governing their respective citizens. They can’t even think about stepping in on a State’s rights issue unless the state has made a law that supercedes the State’s powers. A state may not declare war, or coin money. Those are jobs relegated to the federal government. The Supreme Court’s mishandled decision in that case has plagued this country for thirty-plus years (and isn’t about to be reversed anytime soon.) Roe v. Wade should have been remanded back to the court that appealed it to the high court, and their decision should have stood. Special interest pressure forced the decision from it’s legal roots to a more secular decision. (Well, the Framers didn’t know about abortion then...Nice excuse. It’s the same one used for firearms, too.)
And what programs are these judges, including Ms. Brown, in favor of "dismantling"? Can Reid be a bit more specific on that one? I have yet to hear a single jurist state they want to dismantle any government programs. (Sure would be nice if they could; there are plenty that need to be razed.) But no, to my knowledge, none of the ten that are being savaged by Reid and his ilk have ever stated that certain government programs need to go.
He doesn’t want them, but it’s not because "they’re bad people." Both Marcie have commented on this several times. (I believe she brought it up again this morning) The Democrats oppose these people because they adhere to Hamilton’s explanation of what the job of jurists on the judiciary actually is.
The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.--Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #78 (Emphasis mine.)
The Democrats don’t want judges that interpret the law. They want activists. They want judges that will look at the world, as a whole, and render decisions based on how the world is evolving. Three sitting Supreme Court justices have been reamed or chastised by people for deciding that foreign law has merit in cases they have looked at. Those justices are Breyer, Kennedy, and O’Connor. That sort of behavior is inexcusable. I don’t give a rip what the law in France says. I care only about US law, and it’s highest authority is the US Constitution. To inject foreign law into our judicial system through those on the high court—and any inferior courts—goes beyond the definition of "good Behaviour" that the Framers
established.
And frankly, who cares if the Congressional Black Caucus doesn’t like Ms. Brown? They don’t like a lot of people unless they have a liberal slant to them. But Reid’s tolerance appears to only go so far with Ms. Brown. She wants to take us back to the days of the Civil War? Please, senator. That was low, even for a loser like yourself. But the rhetoric that is being launched now, on the precipice of this issue in the Senate, is only going to be ratcheted up further. Again, specificity, senator? Where are her comments stating that she wants to return to those heady days of racist segregation where blacks were treated like second-class citizens? As it would only stand to reason that a return to such days would have her locked in irons, where is the logic in such a flagrantly false allegation?
Reid’s not one for brains. This is obvious. When Daschle was given the boot in 2004, everyone breathed a sigh of relief that there might have been some sanity that would come back to the Democrats in the Senate. Then Harry Reid stepped up, and showed us that they’re just as nutty, as inept, as incompetent as before. And Daschle should be proud of Reid. The Democrats found their replacement for him, and if Reid doesn’t watch carefully, he may soon find his headed handed to him by a GOP that is hearing their base screaming for the right thing to be done.
Publius II
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 10:42 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home