"To be true to its constitutional role, the Supreme Court should refuse to be drawn into making public policy, and it should strike down legislation only when a clear constitutional violation exists. When judicial activists resort to various inventions and theories to impose their personal views on privacy and liberty, they jeopardize the legitimacy of the judiciary as an institution and undermine the role of the other branches of government." ~ Mark Levin
Well, the moment has arrived (and in only 102 days) that Conservatives have dreaded since Barack Hussein Obama was elected. Associate Supreme Court Justice David Hackett Souter has announced his retirement, and now Obama has the opportunity to appoint his successor.
Already, speculation has arisen about whom Obama might appoint. The consensus view in the media, is that Obama has already expressed his intention to appoint an Hispanic woman to the post.
If this is truly what Obama intends to do, it will be a blatant, intentional abuse of his office. His job is not to fill Supreme Court vacancies based on gender or ethnicity.
The U.S. Supreme Court’s role is to interpret the Constitution. Period.
Obama's job is to appoint Justices based on their ability to fairly dispense justice, regardless of their gender or ethnicity.
If Obama appoints an Hispanic woman simply because she is female and Hispanic, he is being a racist.
Obama has also stated, "You know, Justice Roberts said he saw himself just as an umpire. But the issues that come before the court are not sport. They're life and death. And we need somebody who's got the heart to recogni-- the empathy to recognize what it's like to be a young, teenaged mom; the empathy to understand what it's like to be poor or African-American or gay or disabled or old. And that's the criteria by which I'm going to be selecting my judges".
This is in direct juxtaposition to the U.S. Constitution.
Empathy has no place in a Supreme Court decision.
The mandate of a Supreme Court Justice is to decide only on the Constitutionality of a law. That's all. A Supreme Court justice is mandated to base his decisions on the U.S. Constitution regardless of feelings.
Regardless of gender.
Regardless of race.
Regardless of age.
Regardless of choice of sexual preferences.
Obama has vowed to protect, preserve, and defend the Constitution of the United States of America.
Appointing a Supreme Court Justice on the basis of gender, ethnicity, or feelings does not protect the Constitution.
It does not preserve the Constitution.
It does not defend the Constitution.
If Obama bases his appointment on gender, ethnicity, or feelings, not only will he prove he is a racist, he will be violating his oath of office.
And, if he does that, he must be brought up on articles of impeachment.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
24 comments:
President BO feels no pressure to follow the Constitution, which he has declared to be a flawed document.
The next Supreme Court nominee will be a Socialist leaning liberal who will strive to make law by judicial decree more than it has ever been done before.
The man was not elected to uphold the Constitution. You know that. He was elected to promote the socialist agenda, to redistribute wealth, to give rights to those who do not deserve them (illegals and terrorists), to take over the American banking system, and to ensure his wife could wear butt ugly overly price shoes to food banks...and not be called on it.
The woman has NO SENSE!! I swear those were the ~U~G~L~I~E~S~T~ shoes I've ever SEEN! If she's going to play the part of fashionista, she needs to not wear ugly shoes!!! That's akin to Laura not being able to read Dr. Suess...
The very idea of applying to the rule of law is downright alarming!
Please, God, don't let BHO appoint more than one justice to SCOTUS.
THE APOCOLYPTIC NIGHTMARE CONTINUES...
Havae you turned off comment moderation? So I can say anything I want? OK, here goes:
I don't worship the little black Irish lad. I will vote against him every chance I get.
Yes, Rick I have. The annoying little trolls I originally turned it on for don't bother commenting anymore so there's no reason to keep moderating comments. Anyway, I'm too busy and down to only one computer between my wife and me, and I don't have as much time as I used to to monitor it all.
It seems, from the lack of comments, that I don't get as many readers as I used to, either. I'm thinking of either shutting this blog down or changing it to a journal type format, and only posting blog entry's on my team blog, American Descent, and on my religious blog.
Don't shut down!!
The Left will think nothing inappropriate if Obama replaces Souter with someone who will judge out of empathy rather than by interpreting the law.
Mark, Please reconsider and not shut your posts down. We conservatives need all the support we can muster. I think that conservatives are experiencing some form of "Obama doll drums " due to his excellerated socialist agendas. He will destroy the Constitution as we know it if allowed. We conservatives must stay vigilant, focused, and active in our fight against this Socialist/Marxist agenda Obama is leading our nation into. Keep up the good fight Mark! God Bless, Herm
Oh, but of course, he'll swear up one side & down the other that she's the most qualified for the position...
Oh, Heaven help us that he only gets one Justice!! PLEASE...
...and Mark, don't shut down...(though I don't know how anyone writes more than one blog)
I agree with you, Mark, but who is going to impeach him when the majority in both the House and Congress are Democracts?
Mark, I hate to tell you this, truly I do, but I turned on comment moderation and had it on for a long time because of the annoying little trolls, then thinking I was free of them I turned it back off. But, because they are annoying little trolls they came back. They're like cockroaches. Once you get them they're very hard, if not impossible, to get rid of. Now if I want to get rid of someone I just delete their comments when I see them. HaloScan allows me to ban them, but it doesn't really work because they just go to another computer.
The likelihood of two or more justices stepping down after the last election was the most major factor in my voting for McCain over Obama. That kind of presidential decision lasts long after the prez is gone. It's a true legacy.
So Souter says he's gone after the end of the current session, except for how long it might take to confirm his successor. It'll be hard, but the Repubs need to put the candidates through their paces with REAL questions regarding their ability to do the job. They've got to expose the candidates as unqualified (assuming they will be) through their questions only as they won't be able to delay the process in any other way. If they do their jobs well, Dems would be too embarrassed to confirm the unqualified.
The only good news is that there are no conservative justices thought to be retiring soon, so the balance won't change. It'll be great if we end up with another Souter. By that I mean Obama gets his man, but the man turns out to be more like what WE'D like as opposed to what he wanted. The irony would be classic.
Don't close down the blog. You're not required to post everyday. Post when you've something to say and post it where you think most appropriate of the three on which you post. You have more visitors than I do at this blog, or at least more who post comments, so don't even dare shed a tear over that stuff. And should the trolls return, ignore them except for the fun of mocking them and just delete their most profane comments. That's my advice. It's golden.
Trader Rick reminded me of something:
When Ringo Starr started doing his All-Starr concerts, where he'd stock the band with other rock stars who would each get to do one or two of their own songs, he was on a local radio show hosted by a guy named Steve Dahl, known to some as a shock jock.
Anyway, Steve had Joe Walsh in the studio already. Joe was on the All-Starr tour and as the tour was in town, so was Ringo, so they called him at his hotel. When they got him on the phone, Steve felt compelled for some reason to mention that he had turned off the delay to make things easier, thought I don't know how it does. Anyway, the conversation went something like this:
Ringo: "You've turned off the delay?"
Steve: "Yeah.
Ringo: "SHIT!"
Has nothing to do with the topic at hand, but like I said, Trader Rick's comment brought it to mind and I thought I'd share.
Yeah, that Ringo was always a class act.
shit!
I took a management course in college where we talked quite a bit about diversity. I think it can be true that people with equal experience, education, and ability can bring different things to the same position based on their unique background. A background that can include race and gender among other things. So I'm not necessarily opposed to finding a woman, black person, latino etc to fill a vacancy. Provided that person is qualified.
However, when the president says,
"we need somebody who's got the heart to recogni-- the empathy to recognize what it's like to be a young, teenaged mom"
he's really just saying he wants someone on the bench who will be staunchly pro-choice, and anti parental consent. He's just wrapping his intent in nice words. Which is what makes him a popular politician, but I'd just as soon have him be upfront with his intentions.
"So I'm not necessarily opposed to finding a woman, black person, latino etc to fill a vacancy. Provided that person is qualified."Being qualified is the main thing. All things being equal in that regard, then selecting on more superficial aspects ain't a bad thing at all.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090505/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_interrogation_memos
Did you see this story? As we predicted -- there will be no charges -- there can't be -- and if they were to report one of the lawyers to the bar association as they mention in the article I would fight it if it were me... it is ridiculous.
Why consult an attorney if this could happen? so stupid.
Let me see if I understand you, Art.
You are saying if the choice comes down to two or more candidates who will Judge cases solely on what the Constitution actually says rather than on how they feel what the Constitution should say or mean, then it's ok to choose one of them based on gender, ethnicity, and/or feelings.
But if the ultimate decision is based on proper interpretation of the Constitution, why choose based on any other criteria?
Tonto, I agree. There was never much of a chance of those attorney's being charged, much less indicted. How can one be prosecuted for voicing his opinion?
Oh wait. I temporarily forgot Obama is the President now. Anything is possible.
(I foud three misspelled words in my original comment. Here is the Revised Standard Version)
"...I'm thinking of either shutting this blog..." Mark! Mark! Don't even THINK of such a thing. I would get so depressed I might consider jumping out in front of a parked car!
No, wait...that won't convince you. Just don't do it! You are too valuable for that!
Off topic, Mark, but thank you for clearing up what you meant on my blog, and I also apologize for taking your meaning the wrong way. I guess I need to learn how to not be so defensive. Liberals have made me that way, but you certainly aren't a liberal and I should have known better. Thanks again!
Folks, please don't misunderstand me.
ElAshley created another blog to chronicle the descent of America since Obama was elected, called ironically enough, "American Descent" He asked me to be one of several blog administrators and I accepted.
If I have a political comment, I can now post it there (and often do), and don't really need to post here, except when my topic doesn't apply to the descent of America.
As I said, I may just post personal journal type entries here and post my political thoughts at "American Descent", and my religious thoughts over at "God's Way/My way".
Both of those aforementioned blogs can be accessed through my blogroll to the left.
But, as far as that goes, I might keep going with this one, anyway.
Post a Comment