Posted on 05/16/2010 9:16:09 AM PDT by Nachum
I am NOT a fan of Buchanan.
AMEN! It's not too many Jews or Catholics or whatever, but too many Marxists that concern me.
Since is was male protestants who founded America, is it too much to ask to have a few on the Supreme Court?
> You're kidding right? Political reasons added Thomas, women and wise Latinas to the court.
I'm perfectly serious (and I think you misunderstood me). The SCOTUS is supposed to be the court of final appeal, and to make decisions based on the Constitution.
The sex, age, religion, etc. of the SCOTUS should be irrelevant. What SHOULD matter is whether they are capable of understanding and executing the job they were appointed to do, namely interpreting the Constitution of the United State, as rightfully amended through the years, in accordance with the intentions of the Founders, and paying heed to the principles on which this Nation was founded and on which it has survived until now.
A SCOTUS composed of intelligent, wise, Constutionally-aware people, who happend to be (say) all women or all men, or all Jews or all Christians, or all blacks or all whites, or all atheist midgets, can do a good job as defined above, so I don't care who they are. I care what they think and do.
The politically correct bullcrap and "balancing" has to stop. What matters to the SCOTUS is the Constitution.
At the same time, we have no separation of powers when the Legislature is composed of lawyers, the president is a (defrocked) lawyer, and the courts are full of lawyers.
If ever a profession wrote their own ticket, the legal profession is it.
With the added complexity of legal documents (not that I can't understand them, but many cannot), laws which should be written from a common-sense standpoint in language the average eighth grader can understand are overly complex gobbledygook which only guarantees they will be violated, even by those who intend to follow them--IF they don't hire a lawyer (or a squadron of them) to interpret the law for them, and even that is no guarantee they won't end up in court further enriching those of the legal profession.
Even the IRS help line people will give you three different answers to the same question if you talk to three different people. Sounds like a rackett to me.
This is a ridiculous article and Buchanan seems determined to make a public fool of himself. The big concern should alwys be knowlege of and fidelity to the Consitution. I do have a problem with the fact that there are too many justices from what one would call the D.C.-New York-Boston axis. Surely, there are a number of Americans from outside the beltway who know the Constitution.
“the Court is currently representing about a 3 state region of America, the NE liberal corridor and Two University Law Schools.”
Excellent point, and one that I referred to in another posting. One of the best Supreme Court Justices ever was the late William Rehnquest, who was a true Constitutionalist with a proud Arizona heritage. His legal brilliance was unquestioned and on the court, he was beloved by the staff and even liked and respected by the liberal justices.
First, free speech is a wonderful thing, but Pat should probably consider the virtues of silence on that particular topic.
Second, the thought that a panel of nine judges can be made to look like America in more than the very broadest sense is one of those ideas that needs to just die, preferably a violent and bloody death.
BHO is doing a fantastic job of building a truly diverse Supreme Court. Assuming that Kagan is approved, rather likely, there will be three liberal female members from three different NYC boroughs, Brooklyn, Manhattan and the Bronx. To complete his diversity program his next two appointments need to be liberal females from Staten Island and Queens. Are we a great country or what?
Got it, OK - You might consider what I think growing is 'justice'. Like a trial jury to determine guilt of innocence has to reflect the community, [peers]. A theory that a SC Justice should not be bound by Constitution but can expand with prenumbras of justice. The days of Constitutional Amendments seems gone with the wind plus Presidents can find work-arounds to engage in war.
“To complete his diversity program his next two appointments need to be liberal females from Staten Island and Queens.”
Very amusing. I wish we had at least one Justice from the Rocky Mountains.
lol. agreed
Mark Levin would be a great counter to that..he is arguably our smartest conservative Jew and my fav conservative period ..he and Big Boy...well..not so big lately
some folks have steel trap minds...Levin does
my brain needs lotsa WD40
There are too many Jews in the NBA? Doesn’t appear to be.
Black Jews. Similar to Black Irish.
I agree...their voting hstory sucks!
Even worse - I have to admit he is a Catholic.
well said; I think the headline should read “ Pat Buchanan Suggests Liberals are Hypocrites “
He should be more concerned with there being too many lefties on the SCOTUS, rather than too many Jews or too many Catholics.
And yes, he's got a point about a lack of geographical diversity on the Court. No way in hell that all nine judges on the SCOTUS should come from only two law schools: Harvard and Yale. There are other excellent law schools around the country that could serve as training grounds for top-notch jurists.
The runner-up to Kagan was Sidney Thomas, a Federal judge from Montana. He struck me as less objectionable than most of Obama’s other choices.
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.