Who Taught These Women About The Constitution?
If these four senators were taught this sort of interpretation of the Constitution in school, it is time to fire the teachers. Thomas posted a link to this in his post this morning, and after reading it, I wanted to be sick. I cannot believe that these senators are truly this stupid.
Dear Justice O'Connor:
All of us are great admirers of you. Following Senator Specter's comments this weekend, we urge you to reconsider your resignation and return to the Supreme Court to serve as Chief Justice, should there be a vacancy.
Justice O'Connor, if there is a vacancy, we would be honored if you would consider being the first woman to ever serve as Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.
As United States Senators with the constitutional responsibility of "Advice and Consent," we would strongly recommend to President Bush that he nominate you as Chief Justice. You are an extraordinary jurist who has served on the Court since 1981. You possess moderation, dignity, and integrity, and have demonstrated the highest standards of legal excellence.
We believe such a history-making nomination by the President would demonstrate leadership that united Americans around the shared values of liberty, the rule of law, and the preservation of our Constitutional freedoms.
We hope that you will give our request the serious consideration it deserves, should there be a vacancy for Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.
Sincerely,
Barbara Boxer
Susan Collins
Olympia J. Snow
Mary L. Landrieu
I have a couple of points I would like to make about this letter. To begin, Justice O’Connor has retired to be with her husband who is suffering from Alzheimer’s. Their marriage—their relationship—has been strained, to say the least, since he was diagnosed as having the disease. For Justice O’Connor, she believed her time in serving this nation was done. It was time to go home, and care for her ailing husband. I find it selfish of these women to even present the idea of having Justice O’Connor reconsider her resignation, and accept a nomination to the Chief Justice’s seat.
And as to that vacancy—one that does not exist yet—Chief Justice Rehnquist made it clear yesterday that he was not retiring. He said he would stay on the high court as long as his health allows him to. So, as far as this letter is concerned the idea is a moot point.
Sen. Boxer’s "serious consideration" should be thrown in the trash where it belongs, and where it originated. This woman could not interpret the law if her life depended on it. Her only reasoning for even offering a candidate such as O’Connor is mired in pure, partisan politics. Justice O’Connor, as both Thomas and I have pointed out, did more damage to the Constitution than good. She proved, time and again, to be a swing vote in a variety of issues, and usually ended up going opposite of what was correct and proper. Planned Parenthood v. Casey is a prime case to show how inept O’Connor really was. And when it comes to Sen. Boxer’s intelligence, I see legislation pushed by her where she has done no serious thinking regarding it. To take Boxer seriously is like believing Rove outed Valerie Plame. It is ridiculous.
Second, and most importantly, it matters not what Sen. Specter believes in regard to what the Senate is able to do in the confirmation process. The Senate’s role is explicitly enumerated in the Constitution, and clearly explained in Federalist #76 (The Appointing Powers Of The Executive) written by Alexander Hamilton. Note the title of the paper? The Appointing Powers Of The Executive? Last time I checked Boxer, nor her bridge club cronies, were the chief executive of the nation. That is President Bush’s job. He, and he alone, nominates people for federal offices. He nominates and the Senate confirms. Welcome to America Sen. Boxer.
If you want the powers of the president, I suggest you shut up, and run for the job. And the same goes for any other senator that seems to think they have the ability to nominate people to the high court.
Lastly, does anyone think that if Bush took their advice, and nominated O’Connor, that both sides would hold hands and sing "kumbaya?" It won’t happen. The Democrats will savage her the same way they attack any other conservative, moderate or otherwise. I do not trust the democrats suggesting her, General Gonzales, or anyone else. They will say how much they like certain candidates, but a minority of them will end up coming through the committee unscathed. (During the Ginsburg hearings, even she took a few hits from the Democrats. Granted, most were glancing, at best, but the blows still came.)
The only thing these four old buzzards shoed in this letter was how utterly desperate they are in trying to force the president’s hand. Yes, after reading Thomas’ post this morning regarding the possible—I emphasize possible—removal of Judge Edith Jones from the "short-list," the president has been completely mum on who he will choose. I am apt to wait and see. I doubt the president will renege on his promise to the people to appoint jurists that will interpret the law rather than make it. But I do support Thomas’ call for everyone to contact the White House, and voice their concerns.
Moderates will only ruin the high court further. And as Thomas pointed out in his lengthy piece—filled with citations of past cases—originalists are, indeed, needed on the high court. And we need not even address more liberally-minded jurists. We have plenty of Ginsburgs on the bench already.
The Bunny ;)
ADDENDUM: This news comes from Yahoo! News.
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050715/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/guantanamo_military_tribunals
A federal appeals court put the Bush administration's military commissions for terrorist suspects back on track Friday, saying a detainee at the Guantanamo Bay prison who once was Osama bin-Laden's driver can stand trial.
A three-judge panel ruled 3-0 against Salim Ahmed Hamdan, whose case was halted by a federal judge on grounds that commission procedures were unlawful.
"Congress authorized the military commission that will try Hamdan," said the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
The protections of the 1949 Geneva Convention do not apply to al-Qaida and its members, so Hamdan does not have a right to enforce its provisions in court, the appeals judges said.
This is a victory for the administration when it comes to the literal prosecution of this war. We have long maintained that these detainees do not have protections under the Geneva Convention, nor should they have access to our legal system. The United States legal system is accessible by US citizens only; it does not apply to those here illegally, or those caught on the field of battle. The DC Court of Appeals got this one right: Congress did authorize the military tribunals for these detainees. (US Constitution, Section Eight, Clause Nine—"The Congress shall have Power To...constitute tribunals inferior to the supreme Court.")
It should be noted that Judge Randolph wrote the opinion. Judge Roberts (Yes, that Judge Roberts) joined in concurrence, and Senior Judge Williams concurred with the majority of the opinion. For those that enjoy reading legal decisions, the link to the writing is below, courtesy of Michelle Malkin, and PowerLine.
http://michellemalkin.com/archives/Hamdan%20v%20Rumsfeld.pdf
http://powerlineblog.com/archives/011042.php
If these four senators were taught this sort of interpretation of the Constitution in school, it is time to fire the teachers. Thomas posted a link to this in his post this morning, and after reading it, I wanted to be sick. I cannot believe that these senators are truly this stupid.
Dear Justice O'Connor:
All of us are great admirers of you. Following Senator Specter's comments this weekend, we urge you to reconsider your resignation and return to the Supreme Court to serve as Chief Justice, should there be a vacancy.
Justice O'Connor, if there is a vacancy, we would be honored if you would consider being the first woman to ever serve as Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.
As United States Senators with the constitutional responsibility of "Advice and Consent," we would strongly recommend to President Bush that he nominate you as Chief Justice. You are an extraordinary jurist who has served on the Court since 1981. You possess moderation, dignity, and integrity, and have demonstrated the highest standards of legal excellence.
We believe such a history-making nomination by the President would demonstrate leadership that united Americans around the shared values of liberty, the rule of law, and the preservation of our Constitutional freedoms.
We hope that you will give our request the serious consideration it deserves, should there be a vacancy for Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.
Sincerely,
Barbara Boxer
Susan Collins
Olympia J. Snow
Mary L. Landrieu
I have a couple of points I would like to make about this letter. To begin, Justice O’Connor has retired to be with her husband who is suffering from Alzheimer’s. Their marriage—their relationship—has been strained, to say the least, since he was diagnosed as having the disease. For Justice O’Connor, she believed her time in serving this nation was done. It was time to go home, and care for her ailing husband. I find it selfish of these women to even present the idea of having Justice O’Connor reconsider her resignation, and accept a nomination to the Chief Justice’s seat.
And as to that vacancy—one that does not exist yet—Chief Justice Rehnquist made it clear yesterday that he was not retiring. He said he would stay on the high court as long as his health allows him to. So, as far as this letter is concerned the idea is a moot point.
Sen. Boxer’s "serious consideration" should be thrown in the trash where it belongs, and where it originated. This woman could not interpret the law if her life depended on it. Her only reasoning for even offering a candidate such as O’Connor is mired in pure, partisan politics. Justice O’Connor, as both Thomas and I have pointed out, did more damage to the Constitution than good. She proved, time and again, to be a swing vote in a variety of issues, and usually ended up going opposite of what was correct and proper. Planned Parenthood v. Casey is a prime case to show how inept O’Connor really was. And when it comes to Sen. Boxer’s intelligence, I see legislation pushed by her where she has done no serious thinking regarding it. To take Boxer seriously is like believing Rove outed Valerie Plame. It is ridiculous.
Second, and most importantly, it matters not what Sen. Specter believes in regard to what the Senate is able to do in the confirmation process. The Senate’s role is explicitly enumerated in the Constitution, and clearly explained in Federalist #76 (The Appointing Powers Of The Executive) written by Alexander Hamilton. Note the title of the paper? The Appointing Powers Of The Executive? Last time I checked Boxer, nor her bridge club cronies, were the chief executive of the nation. That is President Bush’s job. He, and he alone, nominates people for federal offices. He nominates and the Senate confirms. Welcome to America Sen. Boxer.
If you want the powers of the president, I suggest you shut up, and run for the job. And the same goes for any other senator that seems to think they have the ability to nominate people to the high court.
Lastly, does anyone think that if Bush took their advice, and nominated O’Connor, that both sides would hold hands and sing "kumbaya?" It won’t happen. The Democrats will savage her the same way they attack any other conservative, moderate or otherwise. I do not trust the democrats suggesting her, General Gonzales, or anyone else. They will say how much they like certain candidates, but a minority of them will end up coming through the committee unscathed. (During the Ginsburg hearings, even she took a few hits from the Democrats. Granted, most were glancing, at best, but the blows still came.)
The only thing these four old buzzards shoed in this letter was how utterly desperate they are in trying to force the president’s hand. Yes, after reading Thomas’ post this morning regarding the possible—I emphasize possible—removal of Judge Edith Jones from the "short-list," the president has been completely mum on who he will choose. I am apt to wait and see. I doubt the president will renege on his promise to the people to appoint jurists that will interpret the law rather than make it. But I do support Thomas’ call for everyone to contact the White House, and voice their concerns.
Moderates will only ruin the high court further. And as Thomas pointed out in his lengthy piece—filled with citations of past cases—originalists are, indeed, needed on the high court. And we need not even address more liberally-minded jurists. We have plenty of Ginsburgs on the bench already.
The Bunny ;)
ADDENDUM: This news comes from Yahoo! News.
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050715/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/guantanamo_military_tribunals
A federal appeals court put the Bush administration's military commissions for terrorist suspects back on track Friday, saying a detainee at the Guantanamo Bay prison who once was Osama bin-Laden's driver can stand trial.
A three-judge panel ruled 3-0 against Salim Ahmed Hamdan, whose case was halted by a federal judge on grounds that commission procedures were unlawful.
"Congress authorized the military commission that will try Hamdan," said the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
The protections of the 1949 Geneva Convention do not apply to al-Qaida and its members, so Hamdan does not have a right to enforce its provisions in court, the appeals judges said.
This is a victory for the administration when it comes to the literal prosecution of this war. We have long maintained that these detainees do not have protections under the Geneva Convention, nor should they have access to our legal system. The United States legal system is accessible by US citizens only; it does not apply to those here illegally, or those caught on the field of battle. The DC Court of Appeals got this one right: Congress did authorize the military tribunals for these detainees. (US Constitution, Section Eight, Clause Nine—"The Congress shall have Power To...constitute tribunals inferior to the supreme Court.")
It should be noted that Judge Randolph wrote the opinion. Judge Roberts (Yes, that Judge Roberts) joined in concurrence, and Senior Judge Williams concurred with the majority of the opinion. For those that enjoy reading legal decisions, the link to the writing is below, courtesy of Michelle Malkin, and PowerLine.
http://michellemalkin.com/archives/Hamdan%20v%20Rumsfeld.pdf
http://powerlineblog.com/archives/011042.php
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 12:00 PM
1 Comments:
Bunny:
Excellent post, especially in serving as the sage of sound advice when it comes to the president. I will wait to throw the baby out with the bathwater until the president announces his nominees. However, I will stand lock-step with Publius if the president does end up nominating moderates. They are not the answer, no matter how little contention they may face in committee.
As for the "bridge club," as you call them (I like the title, BTW) I, too, would like to know who taught these four about the Constitution. You are correct. Senators do not nominate. They confirm. The president is the only person designated by the Constitution with the powers to nominate. He doesn't need to listen to outsiders, aside from his closest confidants.
You pointed out Federalist #76. Good. Hamilton's words ring true as he warns WHY those in Congress don't have the power to nominate. Not only would it be dangerous, as they may not always choose the person with the best qualifications, but more importantly, it is another check against the executive branch.
And, yes, I did see the ruling from the DC CoA today. Hamdan's attorneys can still appeal it to the full court, but I doubt the full court will reverse the ruling. People are gearing up over this case for a possible appeal to the Supreme Court. Again, I don't think the Supreme Court will end up taking this case, as it was turned down prior to the Supreme Court's last session.
Mistress Pundit
Post a Comment
<< Home