Constitution 101 Part 2: A Lesson For The Left
This post applies only to those that have ZERO knowledge of the Constitution. I’m hardly an expert, but I’m damn good at interpreting the 200+ year old document. Those on the Left seem to either be unable to read it, or understand it. This I find most amusing; it’s not hard to get, folks.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
That comes from the United States Constitution, Article VI, Clause Three. It specifically enumerates a provision that many on the Left fail to comprehend, especially in the realm of what may or may not be asked of a nominee to a federal post. That, of course, is my emphasis on the final part of it. Mario Cuomo recently stated this to Tim Russert on Meet The Press:
I don't think that there's any question that religion is very relevant now, more relevant than it has been for a long time. Religion is an important subject in this country, has been from the beginning, but now especially in recent years, thanks to Republican conservatives pushing it on government and a president who, for example, makes a faith-based judgment on stem cells, is very strong on abortion on the grounds that any abortion, even to save the life of the mother, is murder. Religion is a very important subject.
Telling, isn’t it that here is the Left endorsing the grilling of Roberts over his religious convictions. Yet, Article VI specifically prohibits this. Let me explain this another way: To be nominated and accepted as an officer on the federal level—be it cabinet member, ambassador, or judge—you swear an oath to uphold the Constitution. It is the basis for the foundations of the nation, and despite your religious convictions, you swear an oath to put those aside during your tenure.
I know to a lot of people (Marcie being one, in particular) might have a problem with that idea. But it’s true. This is why questions regarding our faith and beliefs are off the table. And, the attack by the Left, on this front, is vaguely reminiscent of the questions raised about John F. Kennedy when he was running for president. "The Pope will run America!" "Kennedy will defer to the Catholic Church." It wasn’t true then, and it’s not true now. Judge Roberts won’t be making decisions based on his faith, his beliefs, his Church, or even the hairs raising up on the back of his neck.
He will render decisions based on what the law and the Constitution states. Period.
At least, a few people hope so. Ann Coulter’s one of them. Hell, I’m one of them. Without a solid track record to investigate, Roberts is a crap-shoot. Don’t get me wrong. I like him. I’ve read his decisions, and he is of sound mind and judgment in the realm of jurisprudence. But these relentless attacks need to end. And he’s faced quite a bit from the Left thus far.
His family—his wife and kids—have been put in the crosshairs by the MSM. His wife’s work with a pro-life group is under the microscope. The New York Times was willing to dig into the adoption records of his kids to see if anything fishy popped up. Sens. Schumer, Leahy, Biden, and Boxer all have reservations about Roberts over how he MIGHT rule on certain things. At the head of their table is abortion. They want to know how he’d rule.
Guess what? He doesn’t have to answer them. He can invoke the Ginsburg Rule—Canon 5—and refuse to answer any questions as to how he would rule on any cases that may be appealed to the court. And he should. If he speaks publicly—and if anyone thinks these hearings won’t be public, think again—then he could be forced to recuse himself from the bench for the duration of the hearing. Associate Justice Scalia was forced to just a year or so ago because he gave a speech where he addressed his personal beliefs regarding whether or not the US flag could be burned as a form of freedom of speech.
Roberts shouldn’t be "graded" on anything other than his judicial record. His "beliefs" within documents concerning his stint as the solicitor general are even a moot point. At the time, his client was the United States of America. He is, naturally, going to argue on behalf of his client. And he is going to hold true to their beliefs within his arguments. But he has yet to rule on anything that the Left—or Ann Coulter—is truly concerned with.
He hasn’t issued a ruling concerning abortion, yet. He hasn’t ruled on the Establishment Clause. He hasn’t ruled on guns, or privacy, or even voting rights. He may end up doing so. (I’d bet on abortion and the Establishment Clause based solely on their track record of appeal to the court, and the Court’s acceptance of the case, though.) Should they arise, then he’ll have his chance to render a decision, and I trust it will be done with the same legal and jurisprudential discipline that I discuss these subjects with. I expect even more out of him. He is the lawyer, after all.
In short, will the man be another Scalia? Probably not. Will he be another Souter? DEFINITELY not, and I say that with a lot of confidence. I see him more in the mold of his mentor, Chief Justice Rehnquist, and that isn’t a bad justice at all.
Publius II
ADDENDUM: Captain’s Quarters has the latest volley lobbed by the Left. It seems as though NARAL has convinced CNN and FOX News to run an ad against Roberts with is completely and totally false. Their allegation that he supported the actions of an abortion clinic bomber is anything but the truth. Check out Captain Ed. He has the links. FactCheck.org also is a great tool for debunking their nutty wackos from NARAL.
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/005172.php
http://factcheck.org/
This post applies only to those that have ZERO knowledge of the Constitution. I’m hardly an expert, but I’m damn good at interpreting the 200+ year old document. Those on the Left seem to either be unable to read it, or understand it. This I find most amusing; it’s not hard to get, folks.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
That comes from the United States Constitution, Article VI, Clause Three. It specifically enumerates a provision that many on the Left fail to comprehend, especially in the realm of what may or may not be asked of a nominee to a federal post. That, of course, is my emphasis on the final part of it. Mario Cuomo recently stated this to Tim Russert on Meet The Press:
I don't think that there's any question that religion is very relevant now, more relevant than it has been for a long time. Religion is an important subject in this country, has been from the beginning, but now especially in recent years, thanks to Republican conservatives pushing it on government and a president who, for example, makes a faith-based judgment on stem cells, is very strong on abortion on the grounds that any abortion, even to save the life of the mother, is murder. Religion is a very important subject.
Telling, isn’t it that here is the Left endorsing the grilling of Roberts over his religious convictions. Yet, Article VI specifically prohibits this. Let me explain this another way: To be nominated and accepted as an officer on the federal level—be it cabinet member, ambassador, or judge—you swear an oath to uphold the Constitution. It is the basis for the foundations of the nation, and despite your religious convictions, you swear an oath to put those aside during your tenure.
I know to a lot of people (Marcie being one, in particular) might have a problem with that idea. But it’s true. This is why questions regarding our faith and beliefs are off the table. And, the attack by the Left, on this front, is vaguely reminiscent of the questions raised about John F. Kennedy when he was running for president. "The Pope will run America!" "Kennedy will defer to the Catholic Church." It wasn’t true then, and it’s not true now. Judge Roberts won’t be making decisions based on his faith, his beliefs, his Church, or even the hairs raising up on the back of his neck.
He will render decisions based on what the law and the Constitution states. Period.
At least, a few people hope so. Ann Coulter’s one of them. Hell, I’m one of them. Without a solid track record to investigate, Roberts is a crap-shoot. Don’t get me wrong. I like him. I’ve read his decisions, and he is of sound mind and judgment in the realm of jurisprudence. But these relentless attacks need to end. And he’s faced quite a bit from the Left thus far.
His family—his wife and kids—have been put in the crosshairs by the MSM. His wife’s work with a pro-life group is under the microscope. The New York Times was willing to dig into the adoption records of his kids to see if anything fishy popped up. Sens. Schumer, Leahy, Biden, and Boxer all have reservations about Roberts over how he MIGHT rule on certain things. At the head of their table is abortion. They want to know how he’d rule.
Guess what? He doesn’t have to answer them. He can invoke the Ginsburg Rule—Canon 5—and refuse to answer any questions as to how he would rule on any cases that may be appealed to the court. And he should. If he speaks publicly—and if anyone thinks these hearings won’t be public, think again—then he could be forced to recuse himself from the bench for the duration of the hearing. Associate Justice Scalia was forced to just a year or so ago because he gave a speech where he addressed his personal beliefs regarding whether or not the US flag could be burned as a form of freedom of speech.
Roberts shouldn’t be "graded" on anything other than his judicial record. His "beliefs" within documents concerning his stint as the solicitor general are even a moot point. At the time, his client was the United States of America. He is, naturally, going to argue on behalf of his client. And he is going to hold true to their beliefs within his arguments. But he has yet to rule on anything that the Left—or Ann Coulter—is truly concerned with.
He hasn’t issued a ruling concerning abortion, yet. He hasn’t ruled on the Establishment Clause. He hasn’t ruled on guns, or privacy, or even voting rights. He may end up doing so. (I’d bet on abortion and the Establishment Clause based solely on their track record of appeal to the court, and the Court’s acceptance of the case, though.) Should they arise, then he’ll have his chance to render a decision, and I trust it will be done with the same legal and jurisprudential discipline that I discuss these subjects with. I expect even more out of him. He is the lawyer, after all.
In short, will the man be another Scalia? Probably not. Will he be another Souter? DEFINITELY not, and I say that with a lot of confidence. I see him more in the mold of his mentor, Chief Justice Rehnquist, and that isn’t a bad justice at all.
Publius II
ADDENDUM: Captain’s Quarters has the latest volley lobbed by the Left. It seems as though NARAL has convinced CNN and FOX News to run an ad against Roberts with is completely and totally false. Their allegation that he supported the actions of an abortion clinic bomber is anything but the truth. Check out Captain Ed. He has the links. FactCheck.org also is a great tool for debunking their nutty wackos from NARAL.
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/005172.php
http://factcheck.org/
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 8:48 PM
2 Comments:
Envisioning RSS as a Web 2.0 platform
RSS began its life as a really simple way for content providers to syndicate their content and for content consumers to subscribe to their favorite providers.
Bloggin just got better. Liked your site very informative.
I have a Rattan Ceiling Fan site/blog. It pretty much covers Rattan Ceiling Fan related stuff.
Why don't you Come over when you get time.
I have no idea how he will rule on any given issue. He doesn't strike me as a man that will play fast and loose with the Constitution. I can't imagine him being in bed with Justice Ginsburg or Souter. I don't expect to him pen decisions, either for the majority or minority any time soon. Although he has experience as a clerk, he still has a lot to learn. His selection of clerks would probably tell us a lot about the man. He's very young. I don't think he will make waves. He will be very cautious. Rawriter
Post a Comment
<< Home