Posted on 09/04/2005 6:17:34 AM PDT by AliVeritas
I read over at Howard Bashman's How Appealing that 160 law professors have sent a letter to the Senate requesting that Roberts be rejected for the Supreme Court. (You can find the link here, but many people are downloading it and you may have to try a few times.) In reading the proposed reasons for denying Roberts a seat I was quite taken aback by the political rather than legal reasons offered. As a libertarian, it always depresses me when those in my chosen field, (law), make politics the norm in the legal forum. This post is not from a conservative viewpoint, it is rather from a viewpoint that believes that Roberts is more than qualified to sit on the Supreme Court. Just like Justice Stevens, (whose opinion in Raich I vehemently disagreed with), this guy is one smart and honest man.
They argue that Roberts takes a "limited view" of Congress' authority and a "narrow view" of the government's ability to protect individual rights. They claim that this could "produce a national order contrary to the promises of our Constitution and the rights it guarantees".This sounds suspiciously like an attack on his political background. There are plenty of judges across this country that have a limited or narrow view of these topics that seem to be doing their work without destroying our rights. This just sounds like an argument that since he doesn't take their view, his views are wrong. This is a complicated portion of our laws as most of these rights aren't specifically listed in the Constitution and must be closely scrutinized by our judges. I believe that a man that has already been accepted on the Appellate Courts is much more qualified to make the correct distinction than law professors.
(Excerpt) Read more at objectivejustice.org ...
We really need your help. Thanks.
Of the two law schools that I attended, only part-time adjunct faculty were Republicans...and they kept their views quiet in order to retain their positions.
Thanks for posting this. I went to the University of Illinois College of Law, and I can tell you that the three U of I professors listed are left-wing loons. I had a class with Roithmayr, and I know she is a "critical race theorist" who believes that U.S. institutions are inescapably racist (even if individuals are not racist) and that logic and reason are simply the white man's means to keep minorities down. Unfortunately, while there are a few conservative professors, they are more intersted in advancing their professional careers than they are interested in standing up for what is right.
I was taught that it was "good" when the Court looked at the "penumbras" of the Constitution, and "extended" its guarantees. I did not begin to learn that this was a pernicious doctrine which threatened the very existence of the Constitution, until I was out of law school in in practice.
I thoroughly agree that law professors who would sign such a letter are incompetent to to talk about, much less teach about, the Constitution of the United States.
Congressman Billybob
Latest column: "Tide of Lies Swamps NY Times: Employees Riot and Steal Office Supplies"
BTTT
Check out the Daily Standard on a regular basis -- a number of conservative law professors are writing op-eds on the issue. On the whole, however, I would not attach much weight to anything said or done by law professors. No one takes them seriously except themselves. The fact that they could only get 160 of these nutcases on a letter is a sign of weakness, not strength.
Both of them are probably having lunch with the conservative university professors. Fast-food no doubt. At the drive-up window. Since they'd all fit in one car.
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.