Posted on 10/23/2001 10:00:46 AM PDT by 11th Earl of Mar
Edited on 09/03/2002 4:49:29 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
This is precisely what Breyer and his liberal ilk are saying:
Judges should be wary of enforcing a strict reading of the Constitution, Breyer said.
In my view, this is grounds for impeachment and conviction, as a strict reading of the Constitution seems to be a job requirement. Even if not tossed out on his butt, at least an impeachment would send a message to the other Supremes and all other judges.
You forgot to include in the header, "155mm howitzer projectile vomit alert!"
Not when it comes to prayers in our schools. The constitution DOES NOT mention separation of church and state. It says that there should not be a state sponsored church ... BBBIIIGGG difference!
Breyer and his fellow liberal unelected tin horn black-robed usurpers of legislative power are intoxicated with the nectar of their own inflated self-importance. They have done far too much damage to this nation already. We don't need any more "help" from them. If and when it is necessary to alter the Constitution, the people and their elected representatives will know what to do and how to do it constitutionally.
Not to change the subject of the thread, but I’m sincerely curious – How do you square this heartfelt and well-stated opinion with your support for a Federal war on drugs, which is in clear violation of the 9th and 10th amendments? (not to mention the trashing of the 4th and 5th amendments that is necessary in order for the war to be successful?)
Judges should be wary of enforcing a strict reading of the Constitution, Breyer said.
Well, the author of our Declaration of Independence who served under Washington and as our Third President said the following things about constitutional interpretation:
"On every question of construction, carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the ptobable one in which it was passed."
"My construction of the Constitution is...that each department is truly independent of the others, and has an equal right to decide for itself what is the meaning of the Constitution in the cases submitted to its action; and especially, where it is to act ultimately and without appeal."
And, Justice Hugo Black, as late as 1968 said:
"The public welfare (good) demands that constitutional cases must be decided acording to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges' view of fairness, reasonableness, or justice. I have no fear of constitutional amendments properly adopted (by Constitution's own amendment process involving the States and the people themselves), but I do fear the rewriting of the Constitution by judges under the guise of interpretation."
I am constantly amazed how many people don't know and/or understand this.
As well as our current laws, which seem to be stirring the Democratic process just fine.
This has always bothered me...ie the fetus being a "part of the woman's body"....so she can do with it what she will.
Just for argument's sake... what if a woman wanted to cut off her otherwise normal, healthy hand, arm, etc? Would the Constitution protect this "right" per Stephen Breyer's interpretation?
I'm willing to wager that Breyer retires in the next 8 years.
" If Bush gets the chance to appoint a justice, he'll appoint some mealy-mouthed jerkoff who has kissed the proper backsides, just as he has done with his cabinet. Where you get all this faith in Bush, I'll never understand."
I like Rumsfeld and Cheney, and I don't see them kissing anyone's backside. Rumsfeld has even attacked the Pentagon's sacred bureaucracy, and Cheney is far from "mealy-mouthed." Further, Condoleeza Rice was nowhere near Beltway political circles when President Bush pulled her in from California, so she certainly wasn't kissing a bunch of backsides in the last 8 years.
As for having faith in President Bush, he delivered on his campaign promise of a tax cut, changed the tone in Washignton, brought back our EP-3 crew from China without bloodshed or bribes, and he's managed to put together a global coalition against terrorism.
Show me one politician who has matched those feats in the last decade. Bush's word and Bush's deeds are dependable. Asking for more than that is akin to praying to the god of armchair quarterbacks.
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.