Judge Roberts' Senate Hearings

So far, the only thing about him that makes me nervous is the fact that Bush picked him, and then subsequently picked him for Chief Justice. If he is what he sounds like, I have no problem. But this administration doesn't do anything without a political end in mind, so I'm still cautious.

0 Replies

Bush will appoint two very conservative judges, and they'll be confirmed, and their Supreme Court will have an influence on the nation.

0 Replies

brandon has spoken. so mot it be. Laughing

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

Bush will appoint two very conservative judges, and they'll be confirmed, and their Supreme Court will have an influence on the nation.

I'm not so sure about the next appointee.

This is almost a "free-be" for GW.

Based upon some of the absurd questions fromt he likes of Ted Kennedy, Schumer and the other Dems on the committee, the next appointee, if considered "conservative" will have a difficult time even getting the appointment passed.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

Bush will appoint two very conservative judges, and they'll be confirmed, and their Supreme Court will have an influence on the nation.

Duh.

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
Bush will appoint two very conservative judges, and they'll be confirmed, and their Supreme Court will have an influence on the nation.

Duh.

forsooth! dost thou mock yonder oracle, who hast hence gazed in to the great crystal and fortold great fortellings ?

ye gads !

0 Replies

I'm an oracle too. Watch this:

The 8:15 train to Pittsburgh will leave the station at 8:15. Many passengers will be on it. They will arrive at Pittsburgh.

0 Replies

My point is that Bush will be totally successful in this, and all your railing against it will have no effect. Not only that, but you are right in that it is a significant battle. A conservative Supreme Court will move the country significantly to the right. I'm enjoying it.

0 Replies

Why do you want the court to lean to the right? Why wouldn't you want it to be a non-partisan court?

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

Why do you want the court to lean to the right? Why wouldn't you want it to be a non-partisan court?

First of all, non-partisan means something different to most conservatives than to most liberals. To us, it means that very, very little should be read into the Constitution that it doesn't say explicitly. For instance, since the document doesn't mention abortion, it is silent on the subject, unless something else can be found that the document actually does say explicitly that would apply. Furthermore, even within strict constructionism, there is still leeway for the court to be conservative or liberal.

0 Replies

because brandon is only interested in getting his way and of course his way is whatever his masters tell him. He's typical of his breed.

0 Replies

blueveinedthrobber wrote:

because brandon is only interested in getting his way and of course his way is whatever his masters tell him. He's typical of his breed.

When your opponent gives an actual argument relevant to the topic, and your response consists solely of attacking him, that is like screaming through a megaphone that you lack the wit to debate the point.

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

I'm an oracle too. Watch this:

The 8:15 train to Pittsburgh will leave the station at 8:15. Many passengers will be on it. They will arrive at Pittsburgh.

Tell us oh great one...

Will all the passengers that got on the train arrive in Pittsburgh?

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

My point is that Bush will be totally successful in this, and all your railing against it will have no effect. Not only that, but you are right in that it is a significant battle. A conservative Supreme Court will move the country significantly to the right. I'm enjoying it.

But, we already have a conservative court. How much more to the right do you think the court can get without throwing the constitution out the window? "Conservative" or not in his personal beliefs and opinions, Judge Roberts has sworn to uphold the law of the land. So long as he doesn't spout sh*t like Scalia* does, the country should continue on the path of progress from the dark ages into the light.

*Scalia (paraphrasing): Hey! The constitution didn't forbid hanging horse thieves way back when . . . anyone watching an old western movie knows that . . . so the constitution doesn't forbid hanging horse thieves now. Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

Debra_Law wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
My point is that Bush will be totally successful in this, and all your railing against it will have no effect. Not only that, but you are right in that it is a significant battle. A conservative Supreme Court will move the country significantly to the right. I'm enjoying it.

But, we already have a conservative court. How much more to the right do you think the court can get without throwing the constitution out the window? "Conservative" or not in his personal beliefs and opinions, Judge Roberts has sworn to uphold the law of the land. So long as he doesn't spout sh*t like Scalia* does, the country should continue on the path of progress from the dark ages into the light.

*Scalia (paraphrasing): Hey! The constitution didn't forbid hanging horse thieves way back when . . . anyone watching an old western movie knows that . . . so the constitution doesn't forbid hanging horse thieves now.

Was it the "conservative" members of the court (Scalia,Rehnquist,Thomas) that ruled in favor of allowing govt to sieze your land to give to another private individual?

No,they ruled against that.
So tell me,and give specifics,what rulings lead you to believe the court has a more conservative bent to it?

BTW,please show me where the Constitution says that horse thieves CANT be hung?

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

FreeDuck wrote:
Why do you want the court to lean to the right? Why wouldn't you want it to be a non-partisan court?

First of all, non-partisan means something different to most conservatives than to most liberals. To us, it means that very, very little should be read into the Constitution that it doesn't say explicitly. For instance, since the document doesn't mention abortion, it is silent on the subject, unless something else can be found that the document actually does say explicitly that would apply. Furthermore, even within strict constructionism, there is still leeway for the court to be conservative or liberal.

Oh . . . I see. The Constitution does not say, "Congress shall make no law with respect to wearing hats, hemlines, hair length, and facial hair nor shall Congress interfere in the private lives of persons," therefore . . . all the things the Constitution doesn't mention are fair game.

Accordingly, because the Constitution doesn't specifically say Congress can't, Congress could pass laws requiring all persons to take off their hats when they enter buildings, requiring all women to wear their skirts neatly hemmed below the knees, requiring all men to wear their hair short so it doesn't touch their shirt collars, requiring all persons to be cleanly shaved, and requiring the Department of Procreation and Morals to place cameras in all our bedrooms to ensure that all persons engage in sex for procreative purposes only and in the missionary position.

I guess--according to you, a strict constructionist--the broad constitutional language that prohibits the government from depriving persons of equal protecton under the laws and life, liberty, or property without due process of law is completely meaningless unless the life, liberty, property, or equal protection right at issue is specifically spelled out in the constitution.

Moronic. Completely moronic.

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

Debra_Law wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
My point is that Bush will be totally successful in this, and all your railing against it will have no effect. Not only that, but you are right in that it is a significant battle. A conservative Supreme Court will move the country significantly to the right. I'm enjoying it.

But, we already have a conservative court. How much more to the right do you think the court can get without throwing the constitution out the window? "Conservative" or not in his personal beliefs and opinions, Judge Roberts has sworn to uphold the law of the land. So long as he doesn't spout sh*t like Scalia* does, the country should continue on the path of progress from the dark ages into the light.

*Scalia (paraphrasing): Hey! The constitution didn't forbid hanging horse thieves way back when . . . anyone watching an old western movie knows that . . . so the constitution doesn't forbid hanging horse thieves now.

Was it the "conservative" members of the court (Scalia,Rehnquist,Thomas) that ruled in favor of allowing govt to sieze your land to give to another private individual?

No,they ruled against that.
So tell me,and give specifics,what rulings lead you to believe the court has a more conservative bent to it?

BTW,please show me where the Constitution says that horse thieves CANT be hung?

MM:

FYI: The Court did not rule that the government could take private property from you and give your property to another private party. You need to read the Kelo decision and try to understand what the ruling was because your interpretation of the decision is wholly inaccurate.

Additionally, Scalia, Rehnquist, and Thomas are not the only "conservatives" on the bench. Accordingly, conservative judges wrote and concurred with the majority opinion that you criticize and conservative judges wrote and concurred with the dissenting opinion that embrace.

To understand that the government may not hang horse thieves, read the Fifth Amendment, the Eight Amendment, and the Fourteenth Amendment. I would also suggest that you read a few thousand cases concerning due process and a few thousand cases concerning punishment, etc., to get an accurate grasp of the meaning of those concepts and what the Constitution prohibits.

0 Replies

good responses, deb. you do know your stuff. thanks !

i thought the land claim back east was covered under eminent domain ?

i don't know much at all about that law, but there is a discussion taking place here where the college where my wife works may exercise that option to force a purchase of the remaining 2 apartment buildings on their block. (which would be great in my book. they're infested with pandieros). the idea being that the entire street could be blocked of at one end, a new parking structure built which would create a better enclosed campus mall.

also, as i understand it, eminent domain isn't just a grab and run. the owner is paid either fair market or negotiates a higher price.

is that even close ?

0 Replies

The Rule of Law and the Spirit of Law
John Roberts has repeatedly said throughout the hearing that he became a lawyer because he wanted to uphold the rule of law. With this motivation, would Judge Roberts have ever supported any of the amendments of the constitution when they were being considered. The letter of the law and stasis decisis are important concepts, but I hope he realizes that laws are created for a reason. This is what is commonly known as the spirit of the law, and is more fundamental than the letter of the law. Does John Roberts understand this at all? All the intentions of the founders and framers of the constitution were not completely correct - to say they were completely correct is bifurcation.
It is good though that his focus will be on interpreting the law strictly, to its most inherent indications, so that an issue like abortion will have to be decided by Congress, not the Supreme Court. If Congress bans abortion, then Roberts will have to be faithful to that law. But the Constitution is supreme over the laws of Congress so the Supreme Court will inetivetably yield some law-making power (through an overturn of law).

0 Replies

Debra_Law wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
FreeDuck wrote:
Why do you want the court to lean to the right? Why wouldn't you want it to be a non-partisan court?

First of all, non-partisan means something different to most conservatives than to most liberals. To us, it means that very, very little should be read into the Constitution that it doesn't say explicitly. For instance, since the document doesn't mention abortion, it is silent on the subject, unless something else can be found that the document actually does say explicitly that would apply. Furthermore, even within strict constructionism, there is still leeway for the court to be conservative or liberal.

Oh . . . I see. The Constitution does not say, "Congress shall make no law with respect to wearing hats, hemlines, hair length, and facial hair nor shall Congress interfere in the private lives of persons," therefore . . . all the things the Constitution doesn't mention are fair game.

Accordingly, because the Constitution doesn't specifically say Congress can't, Congress could pass laws requiring all persons to take off their hats when they enter buildings, requiring all women to wear their skirts neatly hemmed below the knees, requiring all men to wear their hair short so it doesn't touch their shirt collars, requiring all persons to be cleanly shaved, and requiring the Department of Procreation and Morals to place cameras in all our bedrooms to ensure that all persons engage in sex for procreative purposes only and in the missionary position.

I guess--according to you, a strict constructionist--the broad constitutional language that prohibits the government from depriving persons of equal protecton under the laws and life, liberty, or property without due process of law is completely meaningless unless the life, liberty, property, or equal protection right at issue is specifically spelled out in the constitution.

Moronic. Completely moronic.

It is, in fact, not unconstitutional to make laws in areas about which the Constitution says nothing, although it may be immoral or inadvisable. And much as you would like to claim that the Constution says anything you want it to, there has to be some actual basis in the document to support what you want before the justices can properly rule rule that the document so mandates.

0 Replies

Judge Roberts' Senate Hearings

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know