Judge Roberts' Senate Hearings

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.

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).

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 ?

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.

Quote:

[Roberts] told Schumer that he had read the transcripts of every recent Supreme Court nominee's confirmation hearings before him and not only is he following their precedent but he had answered more questions than anyone else.

"I think I have been more forthcoming than any of the other nominees," Roberts said in response to Schumer's criticism.

Paraphrasing: I've done my homework, and in comparison to others, you should be thrilled that I have answered as much as I have . . . so shove it.

According to your strict constructionist view, the United States Constitution doesn't specifically say that you have the right to procreate, so where are you going to turn for protection against governmentally-enforced sterilization?

Debra_Law wrote:

According to your strict constructionist view, the United States Constitution doesn't specifically say that you have the right to procreate, so where are you going to turn for protection against governmentally-enforced sterilization?

1) To the state constitution. I haven't read all 50 of them, but judging by a random sample of about 10 I did look at, they all seem to have language to the effect that individuals have an unalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The right to life has been held at least since the days of Blackstone (1765) to include the "uninterrupted enjoyments of ones limbs", which would certainly be violated by laws as the one you postulate in your hypothetical. (The Blackstone quote is from memory here, but should be accurate.)

2) You shoot the bastards trying to sterilize you, pursuant to the the second amendment of the federal constitution. I think that's the one that protects your right to hold and bear arms. This right has been held, also since at least the days of Blackstone, to empower the people to forcibly resist tyrannical governments. A policy as the one you describe certainly disqualifies as tyrannical any government that pursues it.

If by some unlikely remote chance that Roe v. Wade is overturned, the issue of banning abortions will NOT be decided by Congress. The issue of whether abortions may be prohibited (with certain constitutionally mandated exceptions) will be in the hands of the States and their legislatures.

slkshock7 wrote:

chris56789 wrote:

WARNING!!!

HE WILL change Roe vs Wade!!!! He is a dangerous man!!

To me, this is a positive ...I hope that he will change Roe v Wade, but don't think it will take lies, just the proper interpretation of the constitution.

great! i look forward to you personally being forced to bear, deliver and raise a child you don't want.

ja79 wrote:

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).

I read your post several times and I'm not sure what you're trying to say.

Whether Judge Roberts would have personally supported any of the amendments to our Constitution is not relevant. What is relevant is that these amendments exist and all judges are sworn to uphold the Constitution.

Judge Roberts is 50 years old and he has been a lawyer most of his adult life. I'm sure that he understands ordinary rules of interpretation with respect to constitutional and statutory law. I'm not quite sure what point you're trying to make about the "letter" vs. the "spirit" of the law. Nor can I figure out your point about the founding fathers and bifurcation? Sorry, it doesn't make sense to me so I will not comment any further on those muddy points.

If by some unlikely remote chance that Roe v. Wade is overturned, the issue of banning abortions will NOT be decided by Congress. The issue of whether abortions may be prohibited (with certain constitutionally mandated exceptions) will be in the hands of the States and their legislatures.

And finally, yes . . . the United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land. But, your statement that "the Supreme Court will inetivetably yield some law-making power" makes no sense at all. Courts do not have any "law-making power" to yield. In our system of checks and balances and separation of powers, the legislative branch makes law, the executive branch executes (enforces) the law, and the judicial branch applies the law to cases and controversies.

Brandon9000 wrote:

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.

Okay Brandon. Let's give your interpretation a look.

Consider the following hypothetical:

Roe v. Wade is overturned and your life and liberty interest in the "right to privacy" is no longer protected by the Constitution. Your state bans abortion. Thereafter, the state legislature reasons that there are millions of children in this country living in poverty and that these children are an economic drain on the state and their poverty as they grow into adulthood leads to higher crime rates.

The state government reasonably determines that it cannot continue to foot the bill to feed and house the children of men who simply sire children and abandon their support obligations. The state government reasonably determines that it cannot continue to foot the bill to fight crime and house criminals in jails and prisons. The state government determines that preventing the conception of children who will ultimately be born into poverty is a reasonble means to address the societal problem. Accordingly, the state legislature passes a law that mandates the sterilization of all men who fall within designated categories.

By state law, therefore, you are required to have a vasectomy and your failure to obtain a vasectomy will result in heavy criminal fines and imprisonment.

According to your strict constructionist view, the United States Constitution doesn't specifically say that you have the right to procreate, so where are you going to turn for protection against governmentally-enforced sterilization?

I don't see anything in the Constitution that specifically says you have a "right to physical integrity."

Gee whiz. Maybe our constitutionally secured rights of life and liberty have meaning and substance? Do you think we can give those concepts some substance to protect people from unreasonable government interference into our private lives? Hmmmmm.

Is the constitution infallible?

"subverts" is a very loaded term don't you think Thomas?