More Roberts, More Litmus Tests
Now, they’re coming out of the woodwork. That’s right the Democrats are coming out against Roberts. What started as merely a few embers of resistance is slowing growing into a full-on conflagration. Yesterday, I brought up Schumer and Leahy. Biden was in there, as well, but more for the point of the Ginsburg Rule. It seems that Babs Boxer has changed her tune again.
A group of female Democratic senators said yesterday that they will vote against Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts Jr. unless he vows to uphold abortion rights. ...
"Thousands of women a year died in back alleys," Sen. Barbara Boxer, California Democrat, said of the days before Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision that established abortion rights. "For more than 20 years, Sandra Day O'Connor has been an important vote in upholding Roe v. Wade," she said. "Will Judge Roberts be that same important voice?"
Don’t you just love how she brings up the thousands of women that died in back-alley abortions (proof please, Babs?) but she ignores the thirty million babies killed by the process of abortion since 1973. And it’s so nice to see she’s going to use a page from the playbook called the litmus test. Schumer is going to bring it up in his questioning of Roberts when the committee hearings begin. But he’s hinted that there will be more litmus tests than just over Roe.
Schumer has stated that he might even include a religious litmus test against Roberts. That is unconstitutional. "...no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." —Article VI, US Constitution. As a matter of fact, no litmus tests should be handed out to any nominee, and most especially a judicial nominee.
The nominee can be questioned in cases they have personally presided over. They can be questioned about the methods they use to arrive at decisions. But on cases that haven’t had anything to do with, such as Roberts has with Roe, should be out of the question. Questioning the man on his religion, whether he would recuse himself from the bench based on religious beliefs under certain cases, this sort of speculation should be forbidden. Were I the chairman of the committee, I wouldn’t allow any senator to engage in this sort of behavior.
Schumer, Leahy, Boxer, Kennedy, Biden, Durbin, and the rest of the "Little Rascals," have nothing to stand on. The strategy they’re using is going to back-fire on them. There’s nothing in Roberts’ past that can disqualify him. The only thing they can use against him will be his answers to questions about Roe, should he decide to answer. I wouldn’t, if I were in his shoes. I would refuse to answer any question regarding any potential case to the Supreme Court. If I explain my methods for arriving at such decisions, they should be able to come to a reasonable conclusion as to how I would rule.
Yesterday, Senators Schumer and Leahy continued to make further asses of themselves. Leahy wondered: "I don't see how somebody who said they didn't consider Roe v. Wade settled law ... I don't see how they get confirmed." Schumer took it a step farther, obviously still stinging over Roberts’ first time through the hearings where he refused to answer a few questions. "Most opinion leaders and scholars think that asking a nominee to answer questions about a specific, already decided Supreme Court case is an appropriate line of questioning," he said. "It would go a long way to creating a smooth and quicker-moving process if Judge Roberts were to decide to answer those questions."
To Senator Leahy, you obviously fail to remember that the only "settled law" is the Constitution. It’s settled because of the long process one must go through to amend it. Roe is anything but "settled." If it were truly settled law, then the Supreme Court would abide by the precedents they set. But it was Justice O’Connor in Stenberg v. Carhart and Planned Parenthood v. Casey that diverted from established set of rules for Roe. Both of those cases utilized a new test for abortion. So, if Roe were truly settled, and without any argument, then the Court would abide by the initial decision, and the way they made it, in 1973. But they don’t, and that sends a message to me that Roe could be overturned, and should be so.
To Senator Schumer, he should not be forced to answer questions about decided Supreme Court cases that he had nothing to do with. Without being there Judge Roberts would not be able to comment on those cases intelligently. That is not to say the man is stupid; he is not. But I submit that because I have not served in the military, I’m not able to speak about the military from an educated standpoint. It would be like asking an amateur athlete what the pros are like. Besides, as I stated yesterday, two issues keep rearing their heads in the Supreme Court during almost every session. The first s abortion. The second are challenges to the Establishment Clause. He should not be questioned on either subject, as they are potential issues the Court will be asked to address.
Further, Justice Ginsburg set the precedent itself when she refused to answer some 30 questions during her confirmation hearings. "A judge sworn to decide impartially can offer no forecasts, no hints, for that would show not only disregard for the specifics of the particular case, it would display disdain for the entire judicial process," she said during her 1993 confirmation hearings. This kind of garbage by the Democrats needs to stop. We can’t have two sets of rules, one for them and one for us.
As the Democrats snipe more at this man’s heels, he continues to gain more support. He recently had a sit down with Ben Nelson and Mike DeWine—two members of the Gang of 14—and both men liked the meeting, and they liked Roberts. Both men said that they saw no reason why Roberts could not be confirmed quickly. Time for the Democrats to wake up and smell the coffee: You’re losing this fight. You’re losing it amongst your constituents, and you’re losing the fight within your own party. More people are supporting this man than are opposed to him. I guess the dimwits in the party can claim one thing in this fight. They’re not alone. Ann Coulter still doesn’t like Roberts as a choice, and is disappointed in the president for not choosing someone else.
Publius II
Now, they’re coming out of the woodwork. That’s right the Democrats are coming out against Roberts. What started as merely a few embers of resistance is slowing growing into a full-on conflagration. Yesterday, I brought up Schumer and Leahy. Biden was in there, as well, but more for the point of the Ginsburg Rule. It seems that Babs Boxer has changed her tune again.
A group of female Democratic senators said yesterday that they will vote against Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts Jr. unless he vows to uphold abortion rights. ...
"Thousands of women a year died in back alleys," Sen. Barbara Boxer, California Democrat, said of the days before Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision that established abortion rights. "For more than 20 years, Sandra Day O'Connor has been an important vote in upholding Roe v. Wade," she said. "Will Judge Roberts be that same important voice?"
Don’t you just love how she brings up the thousands of women that died in back-alley abortions (proof please, Babs?) but she ignores the thirty million babies killed by the process of abortion since 1973. And it’s so nice to see she’s going to use a page from the playbook called the litmus test. Schumer is going to bring it up in his questioning of Roberts when the committee hearings begin. But he’s hinted that there will be more litmus tests than just over Roe.
Schumer has stated that he might even include a religious litmus test against Roberts. That is unconstitutional. "...no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." —Article VI, US Constitution. As a matter of fact, no litmus tests should be handed out to any nominee, and most especially a judicial nominee.
The nominee can be questioned in cases they have personally presided over. They can be questioned about the methods they use to arrive at decisions. But on cases that haven’t had anything to do with, such as Roberts has with Roe, should be out of the question. Questioning the man on his religion, whether he would recuse himself from the bench based on religious beliefs under certain cases, this sort of speculation should be forbidden. Were I the chairman of the committee, I wouldn’t allow any senator to engage in this sort of behavior.
Schumer, Leahy, Boxer, Kennedy, Biden, Durbin, and the rest of the "Little Rascals," have nothing to stand on. The strategy they’re using is going to back-fire on them. There’s nothing in Roberts’ past that can disqualify him. The only thing they can use against him will be his answers to questions about Roe, should he decide to answer. I wouldn’t, if I were in his shoes. I would refuse to answer any question regarding any potential case to the Supreme Court. If I explain my methods for arriving at such decisions, they should be able to come to a reasonable conclusion as to how I would rule.
Yesterday, Senators Schumer and Leahy continued to make further asses of themselves. Leahy wondered: "I don't see how somebody who said they didn't consider Roe v. Wade settled law ... I don't see how they get confirmed." Schumer took it a step farther, obviously still stinging over Roberts’ first time through the hearings where he refused to answer a few questions. "Most opinion leaders and scholars think that asking a nominee to answer questions about a specific, already decided Supreme Court case is an appropriate line of questioning," he said. "It would go a long way to creating a smooth and quicker-moving process if Judge Roberts were to decide to answer those questions."
To Senator Leahy, you obviously fail to remember that the only "settled law" is the Constitution. It’s settled because of the long process one must go through to amend it. Roe is anything but "settled." If it were truly settled law, then the Supreme Court would abide by the precedents they set. But it was Justice O’Connor in Stenberg v. Carhart and Planned Parenthood v. Casey that diverted from established set of rules for Roe. Both of those cases utilized a new test for abortion. So, if Roe were truly settled, and without any argument, then the Court would abide by the initial decision, and the way they made it, in 1973. But they don’t, and that sends a message to me that Roe could be overturned, and should be so.
To Senator Schumer, he should not be forced to answer questions about decided Supreme Court cases that he had nothing to do with. Without being there Judge Roberts would not be able to comment on those cases intelligently. That is not to say the man is stupid; he is not. But I submit that because I have not served in the military, I’m not able to speak about the military from an educated standpoint. It would be like asking an amateur athlete what the pros are like. Besides, as I stated yesterday, two issues keep rearing their heads in the Supreme Court during almost every session. The first s abortion. The second are challenges to the Establishment Clause. He should not be questioned on either subject, as they are potential issues the Court will be asked to address.
Further, Justice Ginsburg set the precedent itself when she refused to answer some 30 questions during her confirmation hearings. "A judge sworn to decide impartially can offer no forecasts, no hints, for that would show not only disregard for the specifics of the particular case, it would display disdain for the entire judicial process," she said during her 1993 confirmation hearings. This kind of garbage by the Democrats needs to stop. We can’t have two sets of rules, one for them and one for us.
As the Democrats snipe more at this man’s heels, he continues to gain more support. He recently had a sit down with Ben Nelson and Mike DeWine—two members of the Gang of 14—and both men liked the meeting, and they liked Roberts. Both men said that they saw no reason why Roberts could not be confirmed quickly. Time for the Democrats to wake up and smell the coffee: You’re losing this fight. You’re losing it amongst your constituents, and you’re losing the fight within your own party. More people are supporting this man than are opposed to him. I guess the dimwits in the party can claim one thing in this fight. They’re not alone. Ann Coulter still doesn’t like Roberts as a choice, and is disappointed in the president for not choosing someone else.
Publius II
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 9:44 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home