THE SUPREME COURT'S 1ST AMENDMENT ARROGANCE

NY POST ^ | December 12, 2003 | LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

[Liz]

Not only did Bush sign this unconstitutional legislation into law, he acknowledged that he thought the legislation was unconstitutional. But instead of exercising his constitutional duty to kill the legislation, Bush deferred his authority to the courts. Don't like the ruling? Blame the president. Sal Repper Doylestown, Pa.

[pabianice]

Just imagine what the O'Connor Court would do to a Second Amendment case. Brrr...

[Teacher317]

Good to know some people are paying attention out there!

[Clock King]

Can we really blame it all on O'Conner. I mean I know people feel betrayed by a woman appointed by a Republican, but still, what about the other four idiots? That people like these could rise to such heights in the political realm and NOT know what they are doing to the freedoms we, and they, enjoy is mind-boggling.

[Sunshine Sister]

Imagine that! The public knows better that the supreme court what the Constitution says. It's high time to remove some of those idiots!

[Kenton]

Yeah, it's a bitch when the Supremes take a position ya disagree with. Why, can you imagine, I can remember when they actually seemed to believe that the 2nd Amendment was a "collective right" (as if such a thing existed in America).

[Cicero]

O'Connor is getting worse and worse every year, but the absolute worst Republican appointment on the court is David Souter. He hasn't voted on the right side in any case since he was appointed.

[Area51]

The difference is O'connor knows better. I hope she suffers dearly for this decision for the rest of her days on this earth. Preferably a long life full of strokes and colostomy bags.

I dont' want to wish bad things on anyone, but damned it we are talking about OUR WAY OF LIFE HERE.

May the old turncoat suffer in the history books with the likes of Bennedict Arnold, Rosenburgs and Aldrich Ames.

[LiteKeeper]

INTREP - IMPEACH Ginsburg, O'Conner, etc - for violation of the Constitution (ignoring it and considering International Law instead)

[MarkT]

Our founding, which shed blood and used bullets so that we might have free speech and ballots, is being subverted. Now, because of the judicial arrogance and re-writing of our constitution, we may yet have to revert to old methods to re-claim that which is being taken away, again. A very sad day for the Constitution and Americans who understand what they have had and what they are losing.

[thiscouldbemoreconfusing]

If she were a democrat the Congress would impeach her, but since she is a moderate republican, a nice way of saying an acceptable scum bag liberal, left wing extremist, the Congress will leave her lone and wait for an opportunity to make her chief justice.

Afterall, wouldn't want to upset chaffeee, collins and snowe.

[xzins]

The next amendment to the constitution should be one that calls for the direct election of the Supremes.

It is intolerable that these folks have life-tenure based on a political appointment, and are never accountable to anyone.

They now rule the country and not a soul cares.

[puroresu]

A lot of people deserve blame for this, including President Bush, Karl Rove, every member of Congress who voted for it, and all five justices who upheld it.

O'Connor is getting special blame because she should know better. President Bush (stupidly) signed the bill, probably assuming O'Connor would join the three judges who almost always obey the Constitution (Thomas, Scalia, and Rehnquist) and the one who sometimes does (Kennedy) in striking the bill down. After all, she joined those four in stopping the Demonrat effort to steal the Florida vote in the 2000 election.

However, since then she's moved sharply leftward. Her votes used to be erratic, meaning about half the time she was right. But it's almost as if she feels she needs to "atone" for her vote to help President Bush, which infuriated the radical left. Ever since then, she's been a reliable leftist vote, not the swing vote she once was. She appears to want to be the deciding vote in a ton of 5-4 leftist rulings during her final years on the court so the press will coo over her when she retires. Her behavior also makes it harder to replace her with a good judge, because the left will be adamant that all those 5-4 leftist rulings be protected, so they'll go to the wall to prevent anyone from being confirmed who would reverse them.

The lefties are all whining that Zell Miller "betrayed" them. But he's an elective official who is accountable to his constituents and who has written an entire book explaining his views. We Republicans are constantly betrayed by judges we put our trust in with lifetime appointments. They then turn on us once in power, for nothing more than an occasional positive write-up in the New York Times or invitations to the most elite cocktail parties. Warren, Brennan, Powell, Blackmun, Stevens, Souter, O'Connor, and sometimes Kennedy. We've been betrayed over and over.

[Eric in the Ozarks]

This is not the court to hear any RKBA questions.

[4CJ]

[P]robably assuming O'Connor would join the three judges who almost always obey the Constitution (Thomas, Scalia, and Rehnquist) and the one who sometimes does (Kennedy) in striking the bill down.

What is the line about assumptions? They make an a** ... You nailed it on the justices.

But it's almost as if she feels she needs to "atone" for her vote to help President Bush, which infuriated the radical left. Ever since then, she's been a reliable leftist vote, not the swing vote she once was.

Bingo again. I think she's been leaning to the dark side for a while.

[SteamshipTime]

The Supreme Court's decision was entirely predictable. Myself and others pointed out that the chances were very good that SCOTUS would uphold this law, so George Bush should veto the legislation. The mob on this site that gushes over the man's every word would not hear of it.

Bush's actions in this case need to be clarified. He signed the bill into law because he favors government power over individual liberty. His actions were not a "gamble" or a "tactic." They were calculated and intentional. The tactic was his faux opposition to the legislation and the throwaway line about "doubts about the law's constitutionality." He does not actually have any principled objection to the law.

[international american]

"Can we really blame it all on O'Conner. I mean I know people feel betrayed by a woman appointed by a Republican"



Why bring gender onto it? Republicans would vote tomorrow for a Maggie Thatcher for President!
Besides, O'Conner is only one of two women placed on the supreme court by Republicans....you forgot about Souter:)

[scory]

This is not a partisan issue. It is a freedom issue. This ruling muzzles all Americans except those individuals wealthy enough to buy broadcast time. And even they have to be careful as there are provisions of this thing that put restrictions on them as well.

The point is that now our rulers have stated openly that the law of the land is what THEY say it is. It is no longer measured by the plain language of the Constitution
but by the opinions, whims and current political fads held by the people who rule this nation. The partisan bitterness that infects both left and right will only intensify as both sides see that power now means they can impose whatever they want unfettered by any restrictions save those of self-interest.

This is not the start of a trip down the *slippery slope*. We are getting awfully close to the bottom of that slope. More and more people are going to come to realize this as over time they find themselves on the receiving end of repressive laws and regulations. Those who, at the moment, are happy because this ruling suits them fine should stop and consider that now all it takes to reverse all they hold dear is a change in personnel. And that change will inevitably occur.

[international american]

"I think she's been leaning to the dark side for a while."

If Bush had any advisors around him that were worth a damn, he would have known there was little chance of the court doing the right thing.

[redangus]

Maybe the blame should go to where it really belongs, the President, who for political expediency, did not veto it when he had the chance and the people, way too many on this site, that supported that inaction. Many of us were concerned when this travesty was passed and held out hope that our "conservative" President would veto it, but it was considered by his handlers at the time to be a good political move to sign it and then let the SC court strike it down. A win-win situation it seemed. Well I guess those of us who did not trust the Supremes to interpret the Constitution correctly have sadly been proven right again.

But it's all good. The Pres made some big political points with people who won't vote for him anyway so the 1st Amendment be damned. The Patriot Act and it's offspring have trashed the 4th and 5th Amendments. And nobody has paid any attention to the 9th and 10th since the Civil War. So now if would we could just get 'W' on the right or should I say left political side of that pesky 2nd Amendment and get that sent to Miss Sandra and her friends we could really get power away from the peasants and back into the hands of those truly who deserve it. King George, that would be the III of England, must have a big smile on his face wherever he is.