39. BUSH NAMES ANOTHER JELLYFISH JUSTICE
Judge John Roberts is another guy who SAYS he is pro-life, but when in office will BE pro-abortion. He has liberal admirers and he's trying to keep his record hidden like Souter did. He doesn't know the difference between a "settled law of the land" and a court decision. Maybe worst of all, he doesn't even know what kind of government America has. The town clerk should know these things, much less a Supreme Court justice.
Here's the preliminary rundown on Roberts, beginning with his pro-Roe stance:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-5152927,00.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,163028,00.html
{{ In his defense, Roberts told senators during his 2003 confirmation hearing that he would be guided by legal precedent. "Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land. ... There is nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent." }}
{{ Roberts' nomination to the appellate court attracted support from both sides of the ideological spectrum. Some 126 members of the District of Columbia Bar, including officials of the Clinton administration, signed a letter urging his confirmation. }}
What difference will it make to keep nominating guys who TALK conservative but admit they will ACT liberal?
All the national Christian conservative celebrities will worship this guy like a rock star or a professional athlete, but he will RULE liberal like rest of the Court with their 7-2 Republican majority.
Not only that, but Roe v. Wade is NOT A LAW at all, much less the "settled law of the land". Roe is a court decision, not a law. The settled law of the land is the U.S. constitution. Do we want another justice who believes in legislating from the bench? Do we want another SC justice who doesn't know the difference between a law and a court decision, a Republic or a democracy, or who doesn't know what the law of the land is?
{{ Judge Roberts is a conservative, but he has never been an ideological crusader; he has admirers among liberals. }}
{{The reality, however, is that nobody really knows what Judge Roberts believes, because he has been unusually careful about not discussing his views. His judicial work has been, generally speaking, careful and has given little away about the attitudes of the man who wrote it. So sphinx-like has he been that some conservatives have suggested he might have a "Souter problem" -- that is, not be a real conservative at all. ... But Judge Roberts's law practice was not ideologically driven }}
Sounds just like Souter, except we all know that the "Souter problem" was contrived. Howard Phillips addressed Congress and gave them the information that Souter was on the board of two hospitals where he oversaw their transformation from no abortion to abortion on demand. Before they confirmed him, Congress KNEW Souter was a pro-abortion liberal, they just PRETENDED they didn't, and the liberal media covered for them.
Roberts also supports the welfare state:
http://www.drudgereport.com/flash3acj.htm
“In the 1995 case of Barry v. Little, Judge Roberts argued—free of charge—before the D.C. Court of Appeals on behalf of a class of the neediest welfare recipients, challenging a termination of benefits under the District’s Public Assistance Act of 1982.”
In the speech that the new Supreme Court nominee gave after Bush introduced him, Roberts called America a "constitutional democracy".
A man who doesn't know what kind of government we have has no business being on the Supreme Court. America is not a democracy, America is a REPUBLIC! Our pledge of allegiance to the flag makes this clear:
"I pledge allegiance, to the flag, of the United States of America, and to the REPUBLIC for which it stands ..."
And ultimately our Constitution specifies in Article 4 Section 4, "The United States shall guarantee to every state in the union a REPUBLICAN form of government."
A democracy is pure mob rule, where everything is decided by the momentary passion of the majority (which can change with the wind or be manipulated). Our Republic allows for inalienable rights (life, religion, speech, arms, etc.) that cannot be abrogated (legally) by a majority vote, or even a unanimous vote.
A republic morphs into a democracy when the people realize they can vote themselves ever increasing largesse off the backs of those who work for a living. Of course that puts both classes under the jackboot of the gov't. The welfare class owes their living to the gov't and the working class has their earnings forcefully confiscated by the gov't. Obviously as the welfare class votes themselves more and more of the provisions of the working class, the society breaks down.
Under a republic, man is subject to the law, under a democracy, the law is subject to the whims of men. I can't think of a better illustration of a godly society as opposed to a secular one.
Alexander Hamilton said: "We are a Republican Government. Real liberty is never found in despotism or in the extremes of Democracy." Samuel Adams warned: "Remember, Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself! There never was a democracy that did not commit suicide." James Madison, who was charged with drawing up our Constitution which "guarantees to every State a Republican form of government", wrote: "...democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security, or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths." George Washington, in his first inaugural address, dedicated himself to "the preservation ... of the republican model of government." Thomas Jefferson, our third president, was the founder of the Democratic Party; but in his first inaugural address, although he referred several times to the Republic or the republican form of government he did not use the word "democracy" a single time.
Of course the majority of Christians will fawn over Roberts, and will be misled by idiot Christian leaders like these:
{{There's no question that President Bush is a promise keeper," said Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council }}
{{The Rev. Louis P. Sheldon, chairman of the Traditional Values Coalition, described Roberts as an "all-star" on key social issues such as abortion ... }}
{{"Everything we know about Judge Roberts tells us that he fulfills the president's promise to nominate a judge who will strictly interpret the Constitution and not legislate from the bench," said Jan LaRue, chief counsel of the conservative group Concerned Women for America. }}
Here's the preliminary rundown on Roberts, beginning with his pro-Roe stance:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-5152927,00.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,163028,00.html
{{ In his defense, Roberts told senators during his 2003 confirmation hearing that he would be guided by legal precedent. "Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land. ... There is nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent." }}
{{ Roberts' nomination to the appellate court attracted support from both sides of the ideological spectrum. Some 126 members of the District of Columbia Bar, including officials of the Clinton administration, signed a letter urging his confirmation. }}
What difference will it make to keep nominating guys who TALK conservative but admit they will ACT liberal?
All the national Christian conservative celebrities will worship this guy like a rock star or a professional athlete, but he will RULE liberal like rest of the Court with their 7-2 Republican majority.
Not only that, but Roe v. Wade is NOT A LAW at all, much less the "settled law of the land". Roe is a court decision, not a law. The settled law of the land is the U.S. constitution. Do we want another justice who believes in legislating from the bench? Do we want another SC justice who doesn't know the difference between a law and a court decision, a Republic or a democracy, or who doesn't know what the law of the land is?
{{ Judge Roberts is a conservative, but he has never been an ideological crusader; he has admirers among liberals. }}
{{The reality, however, is that nobody really knows what Judge Roberts believes, because he has been unusually careful about not discussing his views. His judicial work has been, generally speaking, careful and has given little away about the attitudes of the man who wrote it. So sphinx-like has he been that some conservatives have suggested he might have a "Souter problem" -- that is, not be a real conservative at all. ... But Judge Roberts's law practice was not ideologically driven }}
Sounds just like Souter, except we all know that the "Souter problem" was contrived. Howard Phillips addressed Congress and gave them the information that Souter was on the board of two hospitals where he oversaw their transformation from no abortion to abortion on demand. Before they confirmed him, Congress KNEW Souter was a pro-abortion liberal, they just PRETENDED they didn't, and the liberal media covered for them.
Roberts also supports the welfare state:
http://www.drudgereport.com/flash3acj.htm
“In the 1995 case of Barry v. Little, Judge Roberts argued—free of charge—before the D.C. Court of Appeals on behalf of a class of the neediest welfare recipients, challenging a termination of benefits under the District’s Public Assistance Act of 1982.”
In the speech that the new Supreme Court nominee gave after Bush introduced him, Roberts called America a "constitutional democracy".
A man who doesn't know what kind of government we have has no business being on the Supreme Court. America is not a democracy, America is a REPUBLIC! Our pledge of allegiance to the flag makes this clear:
"I pledge allegiance, to the flag, of the United States of America, and to the REPUBLIC for which it stands ..."
And ultimately our Constitution specifies in Article 4 Section 4, "The United States shall guarantee to every state in the union a REPUBLICAN form of government."
A democracy is pure mob rule, where everything is decided by the momentary passion of the majority (which can change with the wind or be manipulated). Our Republic allows for inalienable rights (life, religion, speech, arms, etc.) that cannot be abrogated (legally) by a majority vote, or even a unanimous vote.
A republic morphs into a democracy when the people realize they can vote themselves ever increasing largesse off the backs of those who work for a living. Of course that puts both classes under the jackboot of the gov't. The welfare class owes their living to the gov't and the working class has their earnings forcefully confiscated by the gov't. Obviously as the welfare class votes themselves more and more of the provisions of the working class, the society breaks down.
Under a republic, man is subject to the law, under a democracy, the law is subject to the whims of men. I can't think of a better illustration of a godly society as opposed to a secular one.
Alexander Hamilton said: "We are a Republican Government. Real liberty is never found in despotism or in the extremes of Democracy." Samuel Adams warned: "Remember, Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself! There never was a democracy that did not commit suicide." James Madison, who was charged with drawing up our Constitution which "guarantees to every State a Republican form of government", wrote: "...democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security, or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths." George Washington, in his first inaugural address, dedicated himself to "the preservation ... of the republican model of government." Thomas Jefferson, our third president, was the founder of the Democratic Party; but in his first inaugural address, although he referred several times to the Republic or the republican form of government he did not use the word "democracy" a single time.
Of course the majority of Christians will fawn over Roberts, and will be misled by idiot Christian leaders like these:
{{There's no question that President Bush is a promise keeper," said Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council }}
{{The Rev. Louis P. Sheldon, chairman of the Traditional Values Coalition, described Roberts as an "all-star" on key social issues such as abortion ... }}
{{"Everything we know about Judge Roberts tells us that he fulfills the president's promise to nominate a judge who will strictly interpret the Constitution and not legislate from the bench," said Jan LaRue, chief counsel of the conservative group Concerned Women for America. }}
<< Home