25 July 2005

Citizen Support For John Roberts

A growing voice of the American public is the "Letters to the Editor" sections of the Op/Ed page of local and regional newspapers. Except for the leftist litmus test applied by my local paper, most seem to let their readers views be read even if they contrast specific policies of the editorial staff. The Ashtabula Star Beacon is edited by a leftist idiot who prints nothing promoting or endorsing conservative view points. Even the "Letters to the Editor" are screened and all those which vastly oppose the policy of the editor are not printed. If I were to write an Op/Ed piece and submit it to the editor of the Ashtabula Star Beacon, it wouldn't even be considered. It would find its way into file 13 faster than the life span of a bottle of Scotch at Teddy "the Lush" Kennedy's house. I think that we could all agree that most major cities are life centers of liberal political thought. And their newspapers tend to print stories with an anti-conservative spin. But in my ACLU alerts I came across an article that appeared in the Philadelphia Inquirer via philly.com written by a citizen of Doylestown, Pa.
Give Roberts a fair chance at top court

If Judge John G. Roberts Jr., the President's nominee to the Supreme Court, is a man of good character with a decent brain, a command of the law, and a respect for the importance of the high court in maintaining our republic as a viable institution for democratic governance, the Senate should provide a dignified, thorough examination and, if their findings agree, the senators should confirm his appointment.

Those senators and members of the body politic who consider any nominee who may have expressed an idea to the right of the views held by Ted Kennedy, the ACLU or Jesse Jackson, a sworn enemy of the nation, need a reality check. The tenor of the nation has become more conservative.

Not all the social change this nation has experienced over 40 years has been an unquestionable journey to social nirvana. Many good and necessary things have occurred along with woolly-headed and socially destructive notions rooted in a misguided concept that one has a constitutional right to say or do whatever an individual or group wishes, regardless of its impact on others and society in general.

We do not need a Supreme Court dedicated to taking us back to a time that no longer exists. We are a pluralist nation of 280 million people. But the powerful, underlying principles written into the Constitution at its inception need protection more than ever.

All citizens who truly care about the nation's future should reserve their wrath for keeping blatant, knee-jerk ideologues off the bench. Nominees who are thoughtful conservatives with superb credentials do not fall into that category.

Philip C. Rush

Doylestown

This article that Mr. Rush has authored voices the opinion of all of us on the right. Why? Because we are tired of having our rights stripped away from us through judicial activism. The Supreme Court of the United States comprises of 9 members, nominated by the President of the United States for a term of Life or Retirement. The reason why the term is for life is so that politics are removed from the equation. They are charged with being the legal review of challenges to federal, state, and local laws which may have an impact contrary to the Constitution of the United States of America. Their responsibility is to the people through the Supreme Law of the Land. They are to review laws passed by the Legislative Branch not to make laws themselves. The whole point of electing the legislators of our nation from the citizenry to represent the area of the nation from which they were elected, is so that the collective will of the people is represented in the debates over proposed legislation. So, in a sense, the people pass the laws of our nation. Hence the idea of a government "of the people, by the people, and for the people." We have the ultimate authority over those decisions through our ability to remove an elected official through our right and responsibility to vote. But we have no such ability over federal judges and Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States. The one and only gage that the Justices of the Supreme Court should be measuring our laws against is the Constitution of the United States, not the Constitutions of France, Sweden, Germany, or Great Britain. The recent decision from the Supreme Court involved a measure of the Eminent Domain abilities of the government using a reference of European laws. This is a miscarriage of justice. Congress at this time is considering legislation to remedy this situation. But this comes too late to save some private property owners who are having their property seized in order for their local municipalities to receive more revenue in taxes. It is my opinion that we have got to review the life appointment provisions involving federal judges and Justices of the Supreme Court. These appointments have created an environment where we have 1/3 of our government unchecked and unbalanced. And in the current environment of judicial activism, has created a 9 person panel of something that is fast becoming reminiscent of the Supreme Soviet. And how did this come to being? Through encouragement from organizations such as the ACLU which, ironically, one of our Supreme Court Justices is a former General Counsel. Justice Ruth Bader-Ginsburg. Starting in the mid 20th century, the 10th Amendment of the Constitution has been sacrificed for the social welfare of the nation. A policy to promote "the Great Society" gained momentum in the Congress, the Presidency, and the SCotUS. This liberalization of society gained momentum in the free wielding 60s. And started to have an impact on all sectors of American life in the early 1970s. With the 1973 Roe v Wade decision, the SCotUS decided that the federal government had the ability to regulate what could be classified as a medical procedure. The last time that I checked, medical procedures are not spacifically addressed in the Constitution. Nowhere does the Supreme Document give the power to regulate medical procedures to the federal government. Nor does it prohibit the states from doing so. Therefore, according to the 10th Amendment, it is a state matter. With Roe, the SCotUS decided that they had the ability to make law not to just interpret law. Something that isn't included in their specific responsibilities as outlined in Article III of the United States Constitution. That responsibility is reserved to the Congress in Article I. The State of Texas had a law prohibiting abortions from being performed within the state. A regulation that is perfectly within the rights of Texas under the 10th Amendment. Judicial activism needs to find its demise as a practice. And hopefully, the appointment of Judge John Roberts will be the first step of accomplishing that goal. The appointment of Judge John Roberts to the Supreme Court is one of the most important acts of President George W. Bush. The United States Senate has the responsibility to advice and consent of any nominee (Article II section 2 clause 2). This is done through a floor vote of the nominee. A simple majority is all that is needed to do this. The idea of the filibuster occurs nowhere within the Constitution. It appears in the adopted rules of the Senate which can be changed by the Senate whenever it so chooses. And we nearly had that happen with this supposed "Nuclear Option" dubbed by the Dumocrap leader Sen. Harry "the moron" Reid (D NV). Cyberspace is saturated with petitions that are designed to convince the Dumocrap leadership to approve Judge Roberts. No matter how many signatures that they receive, they will still do all that they can to oppose the appointment. Why? Because their goal is to obstruct any progress of the President until the next election. When, they hope to put forward a candidate which will reverse all of the progress that is made. It is up to us, the Conservative thinkers of America, to keep pointing out the obstructionism that is occurring in Congress spear-headed by Dumocraps like Harry "The Moron" Reid (D NV), Teddy "The Lush" Kennedy(D MA), Charlie "Mr. Liberal" Schumer (D NY), Nancy "The B****" Pelosi (D CA), and Dick "The Turban" Durbin (D IL). And the cooperation of RINOs like John McCain (RINO AZ) and George "I'll Never Be President" Voinovich (RINO OH). And a Special thanks to our friends at Mudville Gazette and Outside the Beltway.
Blogger's 1st Amendment Pledge If the FEC makes rules that limit my First Amendment right to express my opinion on core political issues, I will not obey those rules.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home