Clobbering Ralph Neas And The Loony Left

Hugh Hewitt had soundbites of a recent rant made by Ralph Neas of the liberal People For The American Way special interest group yesterday. Whereas the Democrats seem to be split over Roberts (which may or may not be a red herring) groups like Neas’ PFAW aren’t. They’re digging in and gearing up for one helluva fight. And we can expect to see not only a great deal of pressure brought to bear on the Democrats on the Judiciary Committee, but also on the public as a whole. Neas, not one for truth, hammered on Roberts, and horribly distorted this man’s stance on quite a few things.

"John Roberts repeatedly expressed hostility to affirmative action and efforts to remedy the sharp disparities between the wages of women and men," Ralph G. Neas, president of People for the American Way, said yesterday.

More alarming to him and other liberals, Mr. Neas said, is that Judge Roberts' views "are sharply at odds with those of the justice he has been nominated to succeed, Sandra Day O'Connor."

The wages of men and women? Are we really back to this happy horse-crap? I thought this was dealt with years ago, but evidently Mr. Neas missed the reports showing that the difference in pay between men and women is negligible. And in the field I work in, I know of at least four women that make more than I do. That’s just in my neck of the woods. I know more women entrepreneurs on E-Bay that make ton more money than I do. So, I have to question his assertion regarding wages.

And as for the assessment that his views are sharply at odds with Justice O’Connor, all I have to say is good. It’s about time we got another justice on the high court that uses common sense and achieved expertise when it comes to dealing with matters on the Constitution. It used to be, in this nation, that people read and understood the Constitution. It’s written in such plain language that I’m perplexed as to why more people can’t understand it. It says what it means, and means what it says. Some things are inherent. "Congress shall make no law..." "...shall not be infringed." "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated..."

These all have a meaning. There is no misconception in them, at least not to the people. We know that the Fourth Amendment’s protections against illegal search and seizure doesn’t give the citizens an all encompassing right to "privacy." That was a mistake made by the high court in the Griswold case. But people like Ralph Neas think that the judiciary should correct the mistakes they perceive that have been perpetuated throughout the 229 year history of this nation. The judiciary is not to act in an activist fashion. I know they pat themselves on the back, and write glowing stories about justices that embrace their philosophy. Unfortunately, Roberts doesn’t adhere to that idea.

He stands for the Constitution.

Broadly speaking, liberals say Judge Roberts wants to limit "reproductive freedom" for women, undo women's "right to privacy" and discard remedies aimed at "gender equity," Mr. Neas said at the National Press Club.

Reproductive freedom? Is there anyway I can debate this moron? I’ll give him an education in the malfeasance of Roe v. Wade that would make Ginsburg’s head spin, and reduce O’Connor to tears. And what would tick Neas off even more would be the fact that he would be beaten by an amateur. Our regular readers know I’m not a lawyer, yet, but I’m backed up by my research and knowledge that I know what the hell I’m talking about. And that goes double for Roe.

There are no "reproductive rights," "rights to privacy," or "gender equality" anywhere within the Constitution. I can’t find them, and I’ve read the document more times than I can count. They can’t find it either, which is why they rely on the precedent set by Justice Douglas in the Griswold case. Douglas stated that, "specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance."

Huh? I own several law dictionaries and I can’t find "penumbra" in any of them. A penumbra, according to Webster’s Dictionary, a penumbra is a partial shadow in an eclipse, or the edge of a sunspot. It’s also another way to state that something is unclear or uncertain. An emanation is an emission. So how does this connect with a legal argument over a Constitutional question. It doesn’t. Ralph Neas likes how these monkeys on the court have toyed with our language to the point where the average person has no clue what is being said.

Take Roe. Justice Blackmun wrote the following in his opinion in the landmark case:

"The Constitution does not explicitly mention any right of privacy. In a line of decisions, however...the Court has recognized that a right to personal privacy, or a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy, does exist under the Constitution..."

Yes. It’s explicitly defined under the Fourth Amendment. "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." The "zone" that Justice Blackmun is trying to convey doesn’t exist in the Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment protects citizens from the government submitting them to illegal searches and seizures without a warrant. But, he continues.

"In varying contexts, the Court or individual justices have, indeed, found at least the roots of that right in the First Amendment..."

Really? I beg to differ. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Can anyone find a right to privacy, overt or covert, in the First Amendment? I just quoted it verbatim. It’s not there. But the same twisted logic that Neas believes in is continued further by Justice Blackmun.

"...in the Fourth and Fifth Amendments...in the penumbras of the Bill of Rights...in the Ninth Amendment...or in the concept of liberty guaranteed by the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment..."

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

OK, there are the other three amendments that Blackmun cited. Again, there’s no privacy issue mentioned in any of them. The Fifth Amendment protects us in regard to prosecution by the proper authorities. The Ninth Amendment’s reference to "enumeration" specifically cites the order in which the amendments are listed; the order they are in. The first section of the Fourteenth Amendment deals solely with what a legal US citizen is, and that they may not be denied rights enumerated within the Constitution, either by the State, or by the federal government.

Ralph Neas wants Roberts to be like Justices Blackmun and Douglas. He is scared to death that Roberts might end up being more like Justices Scalia or Thomas, or perhaps like his mentor, Chief Justice Rehnquist. I have some bad news for him. This news tops what Clinton was told the night Matt Drudge broke the Lewinsky scandal.

Judge Roberts is a constitutionalist. He believes in it. He eats it, breathes, sleeps it, and lives it. Arguments can be made, like those of Ann Coulter, that Roberts only wrote those memos and opinions for the Reagan White House because that was the ideology of the commander-in-chief and his administration. Not true. At the bottom of this post are links to a few things of note. If anyone wants to know what Roberts thinks and believes, one only need to do the reading.

But Neas isn’t the only one going nuts. Dianne Feinstein has jumped on the bandwagon. This next quote comes from Michelle Malkin, and Ms. Feinstein has decided to make herself the Senate’s "humor" monitor. This self-appointed position reminds me of the kids made elementary school hall monitors that thought they were the ultimate arbiters of freedom of movement.

In his years as a White House lawyer, John Roberts was quick with a joke. But now, as a Supreme Court nominee, he might have to explain the punch lines.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., said Wednesday that Roberts could be called to account for some of his humor from his years in the Reagan administration, when he frequently leavened his legal opinions with bursts of wit that could run from playful to caustic.

Feinstein, the only woman on the Judiciary Committee, pointed to one memo in which Roberts, while disparaging state efforts to combat discrimination against women, wondered whether "encouraging homemakers to become lawyers contributes to the common good."

"He ... had a sense of humor that is subject to interpretation, on women's rights for example," Feinstein told reporters after a speech at a downtown hotel.

"Whether that was a joke, or whether it represents his real view, I don't know. We'll try and find out," she said.

Who died and made her a judge on Star Search? Further, I didn't know that a PC sense of humor was a qualification for the high court. If that's the case, then I'm screwed. This is patently pathetic that she is going to make a hullabaloo over Roberts’ humor. This is as bad as Anita Hill complaining about overhearing a dirty joke. Guess what? We’re guys. We tell them. We laugh at them. But we don’t do it in mixed company. Most of the dirty jokes I tell I do so when no one but my friends are around for the sole purpose of not offending anyone. Roberts has a singular wit. Guess what Dianne, so does Scalia, and the man’s hilarious. I picture Roberts and Scalia writing dissenting opinions admonishing the court like they were a pair of disappointed parents scolding a petulant child.

Mrs. Feinstein said in a speech yesterday that "it would be very difficult for me to vote to confirm someone to the Supreme Court whom I know would overturn Roe v. Wade and return our country to the days of the 1950s."

"I remember what it was like then when abortion was illegal," Mrs. Feinstein said. "When I was a college student, I watched the passing of the plate to collect money so young women could go to Tijuana for an abortion. I knew a woman who ended her life because she was pregnant."

This is a common argument presented by the brain-dead Left. Should Roe ever be overturned, it will not be made illegal overnight. It doesn’t work that way. With all the law degrees running around Congress I would expect them to know better than to make these utterly inept arguments. They should know better. They went to law school for crying out loud, I haven’t. I know that if the court reverses itself, it remands the case back to where it was appealed from, which would be the court in Texas. It would then be a subject left up to voters or the state legislatures. And in this day and age, I’d be willing to bet that ten-to-fifteen states would approve abortion, and the rest would bar it. Guess what, you liberal twits? That’s how it works in the US. The people decide on issues that aren’t specifically enumerated in the Constitution. The ultimate offense against Roe is a strategy I refer to as the Tenth Amendment Trump.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

The Tenth Amendment makes sure that the federal government doesn’t have a specific power or ability to deal with an issue, that the issue resides in the purview of the people. Abortion was like that prior to the Supreme Court’s gross negligence in 1972. Over twenty states had banned the practice, and others were looking to follow in their footsteps. But the activist judges on the high court thought differently, and like they did in Griswold, they legislated a mandate from the bench that trumped ALL state laws. By making that decision, they usurped the power of the people to make decisions for themselves, and seriously set back Constitutional precedence for years to come.

We have seen the judges that Neas likes in cases like Lawrence, Kelo, Martin v. PGA Tour, Morrison, Bollinger, Stenberg, McConnell, and Casey. He loves the activist judges because he knows that if left unchecked, the Constitution he dislikes will soon disappear. As Scalia wrote in a scathing dissent in Board of County Commissioners v. Umbehr, "Day by day, case by case, the Supreme Court is busy designing a Constitution for a country I do not recognize."

"He supported the legality of radical proposals to strip the courts of jurisdiction over certain school desegregation remedies, abortion, and school prayer," the report says. "He denigrated what he referred to as the 'so-called' right to privacy, resisted attempts to fully restore the effectiveness of the Voting Rights Act, and worked against measures aimed at increasing gender equity."

Above is a statement made by the PFAW, and it couldn’t be further from the truth. Abortion, desegregation, and school prayer are subjects that should be left up to the people, not the courts. We couldn’t go back to segregated schools, like those prior to the Civil Rights movement, if we wanted to. The Constitution forbids such actions. It forbids it by reinforcing the rights of citizens under the Fourteenth Amendment. He’s "denigrated" the right to privacy because it doesn’t exist, except by the court’s continued perpetuation of it. There’s no reason to further the argument of gender equality; it’s been taken as far as it can go, and has, at times, taken even farther than it should have been. As for the Voting Rights act, I defer to the brilliant legal minds at the Center for Justice.

"Neas’ claim — namely, that Judge Roberts’s warnings about potential constitutional concerns with imposing a nationwide effects test under amendments to section 2 of the Voting Rights Act threatened to severely harm voting rights progress — have been proven to be unfounded. In fact, Judge Roberts’s view was vindicated when the Congress ultimately changed the language of the bill to carve out the constitutionally questionable application Roberts had warned against, namely the creation of a right to proportional representation. Moreover, Judge Roberts’s views about the potential constitutional issues surrounding a nationwide effects test proved prescient. For example, half of the full Second Circuit court of appeals, sitting en banc, joined an opinion concluding that it is unclear whether, as a general rule, the results methodology of [the amended section 2 of the Voting Rights Act] is constitutionally valid. Baker v. Pataki, 85 F.3d 919, 928 n.12 (2d Cir. 1996) (en banc) (opinion of Mahoney, J., joined by half of the judges of the Court). And subsequent Supreme Court cases, such as City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (1997), have reinforced the validity of Judge Roberts’s points."

Neas, and his fellow liberal cronies within these special interest groups lining up against Roberts are going to be put through hell over this fight. They’ve drawn the lines, and they’re digging in. . Ted Kennedy has added James Flug to his staff to dig up dirt on Roberts. Feinstein doesn’t find the man funny. Schumer, Leahy, Durbin, and the rest of the Inspector Clouseau’s are going to pull out the stops to try and beat this man. It’s not going to work. Roberts is clean as a whistle, and the ABA just rated him "well-qualified" to be a sitting USSC Justice. However, if these idiotarians chooses to make this fight, we’ll be waiting to beat them with the rolled-up newspaper, and rub their noses in the crap they spew.

http://www.sctnomination.com/blog/archives/2005/08/cases_argued_by_1.html
Above are the cases that Roberts argued before the USSC. Included are the opinions, and a link to oral arguments through OYEZ, if it is available to you.

http://www.radioblogger.com/archives/august.html#000903a
Generalissimo Duane's superb site, which has a list of the box of documents handed over by the Reagan Library that the bloggers thoroughly disseminated and vetted, voluntarily, after Hugh Hewitt put out the call for it so we'd be prepared for this fight.

Publius II