Posted on 09/17/2005 8:40:29 AM PDT by Unam Sanctam
ON THE FINAL DAY OF the Roberts hearings, Sen. Richard J. Durbin of Illinois tried one last time: "If you've made one point many times over . . . the course of the last three days," he told the judge, "it is that as a judge you will be loyal and faithful to the process of law, to the rule of law." But "beyond loyalty to the process of law," he asked Roberts, "how do you view [the] law when it comes to expanding our personal freedom? . . . That's what I've been asking."
And so, in various ways, had Durbin's Democratic colleagues been asking about such matters--ones "beyond loyalty" to the rule of law. In response to Durbin, Roberts stuck to the point he had indeed made "many times over." Reframing the senator's question so as to reach the core issue, Roberts said, "Somebody asked me, you know, 'Are you going to be on the side of the little guy?' And you obviously want to give an immediate answer. But as you reflect on it, if the Constitution says that the little guy should win, the little guy is going to win in court before me. But if the Constitution says that the big guy should win, well, then the big guy is going to win, because my obligation is to the Constitution. That's the oath. The oath that a judge takes is not that 'I'll look out for particular interests.' . . . The oath is to uphold the
Constitution and laws of the United States, and that's what I would do."
(Excerpt) Read more at weeklystandard.com ...
I hadn't heard this soundbite with Lindsay Graham. Judge Roberts hit the nail right on the head here.
Judge Roberts answered correctly. It is unfortunate that republicans nominate fair judges and democrats nominate partisans.
Even with Bush's two picks, we'll hold the slightest of margins on the Supreme Court.
Great answer by Judge Roberts.
Judge Roberts hit the nail right on the head here.
------
Yes he did. And he did everything just short of calling our the liberal activists on the SCOTUS. He shows much hope and promise.
With taxation, regulation, eminent domain, kyoto, protectionism, opposition to social security reform, rampant environmentalism and other forms of socialism.... since when are democrats concerned with personal freedom?
They are very concerned with their personal freedom...and the imposition of their views and control on all who disagree with them.
Congress needs to ELIMINATE all the federal judicial districts - they are not authorized by the Constitution as written and it would be a quick and simple way to destroy the radical judicial tyrannical judges.
They can always come back a month later and say "oops - we need to restart the fed districts and just appoint very few REAL judges this time around.
Even with Bush's two picks, we'll hold the slightest of margins on the Supreme Court.
------
And this is the tragedy for our country, that now infests our SCOTUS. This body should NOT in any way, be partisan. Their job, as Roberts so perfectly states it, it to interpret established, written law and apply it. Period.
Of course we know that the liberal activists will continue to use the SCOTUS to enable their agenda of establishing radical liberalism as an institution in America. They need to be cleaned out.
Imagine that. A Judge who understands that his job is to apply the principles of the constitution.
Go figure........
Instead, the democrats forced kennedy on our country who in turn is a certified socialist and was the lead in the ruling where one citizen can use the law to take property from another citizen....the most anti-American ruling in memory.
This statement alone is why Roberts will not receive a single vote from the Democrats on the Judiciary Committee.
Aren't most of the liberal justices GOP nominees? Souter, Kennedy, Stevens, and O'Connor were nominated by Republicans.
I disagree.
Even if the second one is a strict constructionist or originalist, we are one more justice shy of 5.
It would also be the farthest from our Founders' minds to have Congress or the President deciding.
He will get some D votes, not all, but some.
There is a clear thought.
Even Congress and the President are not to trample on the rights secured by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
In that case, the SCOTUS should strike them down. Not adjust it, reinterpret it...but just strike it down.
Anyway...your Roberts quote is great. My problem is that he seems to contradict that here and there. In fact, I don't know how he can say that and then feel good about being part of the Romer case. I guess he blames the judges and accepts no responsibility himself. I think lawyers who take cases like that -- for free -- share the blame. At least make these activists (who know exactly what they are doing to the rule of law) pay for the legal fees so that, if nothing else, they will eventually run out of money.
In this context I think you can safely substitute Homosexual Activists' Agenda for personal freedom.
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.