Posted on 07/14/2005 1:19:22 PM PDT by Congressman Billybob
Do you agree that the 2nd Amendment is a Law of the Land, - and therefore must be supported, as written, by all judges & officials, -- notwithstanding any State laws to the contrary?
Another way of putting it:
"Mr. Protojustice, do you know the difference between a dependent clause and the subject of a sentence?"
"Of course, Senator."
"Then, would you please diagram the following and explain its meaning: 'A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.' ?"
Another way of putting it:
"Mr. Protojustice, do you know the difference between a dependent clause and the subject of a sentence?"
"Of course, Senator."
"Then, would you please diagram the following and explain its meaning: 'A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.' ?"
"Certainly Senator. It means that the individual right can be severely regulated, & certain types of arms prohibited.
-- I cite as proof the recent Justice Dept report prepared by the current administration."
It's called (hyphen inserted for emphasis) pre-judice (prejudging the outcome of a specific case). When a decision has been made during the course of a previous case ("in the line of duty", as it were), the principle doesn't apply.
That is why I don't think that commenting on Kelo would represent "prejudice". The case has been decided. There is no more information available for consideration nor is there any information hidden. A nominee's decision on such a case is no more an impediment to future fairness than the decisions reached by those on the court.
But the commenter did not evaluate all of the evidence. When a justice looks at a case, they see the whole of the submitted evidence. Someone on the outside doesn't see near as much.
JMHO - I'm an engineer, not a lawyer.
Thanks for a reasoned response, BTW.
For life? Is a justice brain dead? No, only half dead. Can keep his (her) job. Pilots of jet airplanes get retested frequently. Reconfirm justices every decade or so. More frequently after 75.
Favorite liberal sport, throwing out pieces of the Bill of Rights. Ranks behind throwing out God, but ahead of throwing out the Ten Commandments and about even with throwing out the Magna Carta.
Besides, on a case that sharply and closely divided, there's always the chance that the Court will overrule the Kelo case. In either event, a potential Justice who expressed the opinion that he/she would uphold/reverse Kelo, would disqualify that Justice from serving on that future case.
Trust me, it's a huge no-no.
John / Billybob
My point is that there is a difference between answering a question regarding a hypothetical case (or a real one) which might reach the court in the future versus expressing an opinion in agreement with the dissent in a case already decided. We have over two hundred years of precedent by prior Supreme Court decisions. Is it the case that no opinion can be stated regarding the correctness of any such decisions without being bound to recuse oneself in a similar case?
The Dred Scott decision was a federal affirmation of the power to return a slave to his owner in a slave state. Is that decison out-of-bounds for comment? The issue of ownership of "property" having crossed state lines is still liable to come up.
From a practical point-of-view I can see where an appointee might use the claim that he wishes to avoid a future obligation to recuse in refusing to answer a question. Isn't a Supreme Court Justice the final arbiter of when he must recuse, short of impeachment? Are there any examples of a Justice recusing on the basis of opinions stated during confirmation, apart from some actual conflict-of-interest or prior direct involvement in a case?
And finally, thanks for taking your time to respond. My future degree from UFR (the University of FreeRepublic) will be highly prized.
There is, of course, a major difference between "How would you vote on [BLANK] case?" And, "What is the role of a judge in the American system of government? (Please refer to the Constitution and the Federalist in your answer?"
The first question is always out of order. The second question should be mandatory for all who seek to be judges of Justices today.
John / Billybob
dat's funny!
justice ginzburg wanted to eliminate mother's day and father's day, yet she was over whelmingly approved by both libs and pubbies.
Excellent!
No, to make a short story even shorter, five Justices ruled that the town of Kelo had this right and four Justices ruled as if the 14th Amendment somehow applied to the 5th, which it didn't until 1897. In any case, all nine Justices ignored the Constitution and the original intent of the document. It was not meant to apply to the states. If any of the four Justices that voted against Kelo would have used federalism as an argument then I may have had some respect for their decision
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.