Posted on 06/23/2004 8:03:44 AM PDT by crushkerry
If, God forbid, John Kerry does win the Presidency, we all need to pray for the health of the justices who sit on the US Supreme Court, as well as their desire to keep working. The reason is that should one of the conservative justices (Sandy O'Connor is NOT on that list), then John Kerry would likely make his legacy last long beyond his Carter-like 4 year term of malaise.
In the 2000 campaign President Bush was asked about the types of appointments he would make to the Supreme Court. He cited Justices Scalia and Thomas as examples of the types of justices that would meet his criteria.
To date, we could not find an instance of a journalist asking John Kerry which sitting Supreme Court justice best reflects his personal philosophy on interpreting the Constitution, and would most likely harbinger the type of justice he would nominate for the highest court in the land.
One thing we’re fairly certain of however, is that he doesn’t want to answer that question.
The most revealing statement John Kerry has made about the types of justices he would appoint to the Supreme Court was in October, 2003, before the National Council of Negro Women. He said that he would appoint justices that “with a broad understanding of American life today without drawing from any ideology, for the sake of ideology, people who have a commitment to diversity, fairness and equality."
As a service to our readers, we here at crushkerry.com will interpret that pabulum.
It means that his justices would not interpret the Constitution as written, but rather as a “living document” that can be folded, spindled and mutilated in order to achieve the desired result. Specifically to Kerry it means justices who favor abortion, affirmative action, gay marriage and who are against the Patriot Act, state’s rights, and death penalty. Don’t believe us? Just read through the coded language on his website when discussing these issues.
What do all these specific issues have in common? The people would never go along with them if they were given a say. For the last 40 years liberals have achieved their social engineering and political goals through activist judges rather than through the legislature or the ballot box for the simple reason they couldn’t win there. They have been forced to rely on the imperial judiciary to achieve by fiat what they could not achieve by persuasion and democracy.
The prospect of 2 or 3 more Justices like Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Bush 41’s biggest mistake, David Souter (whose recent mugging while he was jogging caused us to recall a similar incident involving Kevin Spacey) is frightening.
The main reason? In this age of terrorism, and enemies that hide in the shadows, these justices (and O’Connor) have all expressed support for a greater reliance on international law and treaties as precedent in their decision making. The left wing radical Justice Ginsburg has urged and end to our "island" and “lone ranger” mentality in regard to our justice system and has jointed with Hillary to start a liberal version of the Federalist Society.
That would be just dandy wouldn’t it? Picture Chief Justice Ginsburg, appointed by President Kerry, on the phone consulting with the idiots at The Hague and the French Justice Office before ruling on the “civil rights” of the Gitmo detainees, and the availability of the very effective “sneak and peek” warrants allowed by the Patriot Act.
Given France's nearly 4 year refusal to extradite Ira Einhorn and their deification of cop-killer Mumia Abu Jamal, and the European elites general feelings about America we know that her taking their views into account would make us far less safe.
Would it be too much to ask Justice Ginsburg and her ilk whether or not we should turn US Military personnel over to the ICC? And can someone remind her and her lefty colleagues that they swore to uphold the US Constitution, and the US Constitution only?
Yet, these are exactly the liberal soul mates who share John Kerry’s views on interpreting the Constitution in a way that harms our social fabric, and most importantly, endangers our safety. That’s why he will never give a specific answer to our question.
If he were to have a rare honest moment and say that he would look to appoint justices like Ginsburg and Breyer, it would take about 10 seconds for those in the blogosphere (like, for example, crushkerry.com) to cite their opinions from cases involving hot button issues that would outrage average Americans. Thus, Kerry has to bob and weave and issue idiotic bromides like he did in October 2003 about the types of justices he would appoint rather than answer specific questions.
We know what you’re thinking. Couldn’t the GOP simply vote down or if they are the minority, filibuster the nominee, much like the Dems are unfairly doing now. First of all, we’re not ones for doing stupid things in response to stupid things (well, in some cases we are). But most of all you have to remember that the GOP Senate has many members with the spine of jellyfish when it comes to judicial nominations. Yes, we’re talking about you Senators Hatch and Specter (who would be the next Chairman of the Judiciary Committee).
So we here at crushkerry.com want to get the ball rolling. A special “shout-out” from us to the first journalist who asks Kerry the question. We won’t hold our breath.
Don't forget the two Clintoon Lawyers, Bubba and $inator Hildebea$t.
At least one of these Rat icons would be a candidate for the SCOTUS by al Querry.
It would probably be the Hildebea$t, and al Querry would make Bubba the Supreme Head of the UN for life.
Klinton lost his license to practice law, didn't he?
And I'm doubtful Broom Hildebeast could get approved. But then again ... with Snarlen' Arlen Spector on his way to becoming Chair of Judiciary ...
He voluntarily relinquished it for 5 years upon striking the deal w/ Robert Ray just before he left office in exchange for no trial, etc.
I don't think Ginsberg could survive another confirmation hearing. Her speech is frequently incoherent, or at least is was when I attended Allan Favish's argument at the USSC back in December. I asked someone who was formerly associated with the Court, and I'm pretty sure speaks privately with the justices, about my surprise at the incoherent questions of one of the (unnamed by me) justices. He knew whom I was speaking about.
ML/NJ
Obviously I'm not. Frankly, I don't see what else Kerry could reward her with for her support.
The Supreme Court is just as important as the War on Terror and why every conservative MUST vote for President Bush even if they don't agree with every single thing he has done.
Ah. I see. Well, Klinton it may well be then. But I agree with others that Boy Clinton has his sights set on Gen Sect of the UN ... global domination and all that.
Well, as of now (granted some Sen. are retiring) you have about 40-43 Democrats that would support her automatically (the exceptions are Miller, and possibly the following, Nelson of FL, Nelson of NE, and John Breaux).
Then I think it would be pretty easy to find the 7 GOPers to vote for her. They would be (the usual suspects) - Specter, Snowe, Collins, Chafee, Gordon Smith of OR (can't afford to go against the woman vote), Voinivich and perhaps McCain).
Sad, but true.
The Supreme Court is just as important as the War on Terror and why every conservative MUST vote for President Bush even if they don't agree with every single thing he has done.
The biggest threat by terrorists is that we sacrifice rights for a little security. The terrorist actions themselves aren't anywhere near the threat the left is. The SC is far more important than the war against terrorism.
Then again, the more conservative wing of the SC just ruled that one can commit a crime by not giving their name...
I've got a feeling that the next RAT president, whether Kerry or somebody else in the future, may have trouble getting the Senate to confirm justices.
So without his license to practice law, he will run the UN for 5 years and then become the head of SCOTUS.
Yep, definitely. Was just thinking out loud how far we've gone astray from the original vision of the U.S.
ping
ML/NJ
Ruth "Buzzy" Ginsburg is a retard. Did anything more come out about that Souter mugging?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.