ACLU Whines Over Robert’s Confirmation
Posted on September 13, 2005
The ACLU is urging the Senate Judiciary Committee to fully probe Roberts’ record. They are troubled over areas in his record where he opposed killing unborn babies, and even supported prayer in school! In other words, they fear he will be a stumbling block to their partisan agenda by strictly interpreting the Constitution.
Once confirmed, the federal judges are able to serve their duty for life. They take an oath as a judge that the supreme law of the land is the United States Constitution. Their job is to interpret the Constitution, not legislate from the bench as many of them do anyway.
Linked at Mudville Gazette
Roberts is a highly qualified person for this job, and I’m not really worried about the Senate carefully reviewing his record, or asking tough questions. However, they don’t really need any encouragement from the ACLU. They are doing just fine. As a matter of fact they have gone off the deep end already with questions. They are stretching their rhetoric to the point of using the hurricane catastrophy in their efforts of obstruction.
I think their are Justices already appointed that the Senate should be concerned with. And perhaps more important questions they could be asking Roberts.
Some in Congress believe Kennedy’s position – and those of several other Court Justices - is a clear violation of both U.S. law and the Justices’ own solemn oath to uphold solely the U.S. Constitution.
So far there has been little speculation as to how chief justice nominee John Roberts might handle one of the most important questions he could face: Does he believe that his judicial decisions should rely strictly on his interpretation of U.S. Constitutional law and American legal precedent, or should he take into account foreign and international laws as well in forming his legal opinions?The question, if Kennedy’s remarks in this week’s New Yorker are any indication, is probably the most pressing one that can be asked of Roberts.Newsmax
Here is another example of Kennedy’s stupid remarks.
This practice of invoking International law in Court rulings is new, and frankly dangerous. Kennedy, and O’Connor were both considered solid conservative justices at one point. Many of their recent rulings have started turning leftward, and part of the reason is this new fad of using international law.
It really has no place in the interpretation of our Consitituition. Think about how dangerous this practice is. There are all kinds of countries out there with different laws. Invoking foreign laws when the job description is to interpret “the law of the land” is plain and simply legislating from the bench. It is a pick and choose project of using the foreign law one already agrees with.
This past May, NewsMax Magazine reported that Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg told a conference that she considers foreign laws, not just U.S. laws and the Constitution, in forming her legal opinions.
Ginsburg’s views are not surprising. A Clinton appointee and former ACLU legal counsel, she is viewed as the court’s most liberal jurist.
But her views about the use of foreign laws have apparently influenced both O’Connor and Kennedy – and may do the same for Roberts.
Now, the eye-opening article in The New Yorker magazine explores how Justice Anthony Kennedy’s passion for foreign laws could change the Court in the years to come.Newsmax
“Relying upon foreign law, particularly international covenants to which the United States is not a party, is an illegitimate source of interpretation for the Constitution,” former Reagan administration Attorney General Edwin Meese told NewsMax.
“It is impossible to reconcile foreign customs or opinions of law with the meaning of the Constitution,” he added. Meese made clear, however, that he was not commenting on Kennedy’s remarks but on the concept of using foreign laws to interpret U.S. laws.
I couldn’t agree more. You just take your pick from the 191 countries out there and pick a law that agree with your preconcieved opinion. This is not interpreting the Constitution. This is writing laws, a job that belongs to Congress.
House Majority Leader Tom DeLay complained in an interview: “We’ve got Justice Kennedy writing decisions based upon international law, not the Constitution of the United States. That’s just outrageous. And not only that, he said in session that he does his own research on the Internet. That is just incredibly outrageous.”
Rep. Tom Feeney, a Florida Republican, has sponsored a resolution condemning the Court’s use of foreign laws.
“The resolution says that it is always and everywhere inappropriate to base decisions regarding the original meaning of the U.S. Constitution on foreign laws, institutions or constitutions,” Rep. Feeney told NewsMax in an exclusive interview.
“All you have to do if you use this approach is to line up all 191 countries and see which one agrees with the outcome that fits your personal bias as a judge.
“There’s no rhyme or reason to which countries it’s appropriate to refer to in this recent trend.”
Asked if relying on foreign law could be an impeachable offense, Feeney said: “The first step in my view is for both bodies of Congress to advise the court that they are engaging in misbehavior, which is what the Feeney Resolution does.
Rehnquist once said that legislating from the bench should be an impeachable offense, and I agree. Feeney’s resolution is one everyone should support. The use of foreign law is dangerous to America, and undermines the position appointed to those we must trust to administer justice, and uphold our civil liberties.
So, if I had to pick a question to urge Congress to grill Mr. Roberts on, this would be the one concerning the invocation of foreign law into Supreme Court cases, not how he would rule in some imaginary, hypothetical case in the future. My question has to do with how he would do the job he is appointed to do.
I think this issue is much more of a threat to our way of life than the ACLU’s paranoia that Roberts might rule in favor of the freedom of religious expression such as prayer being allowed in school.
» Filed Under ACLU, Church And State
Trackback URL
Comments
5 Responses to “ACLU Whines Over Robert’s Confirmation”
-
Affiliations
The Giants
-
Donate
Steal Me
Our Store
Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
More blogs about the ACLU
Here, Here! I completely agree. All these liberal are whining about how scared they are that Bush has 2 nominees coming up for the Supreme Court. But, this is the most dangerous and pressing matter. It scares me that Judges are actually defying the law of the land, defying the Constitution of the US, the very document that they are sworn to uphold and protect by utilyzing any international law that fits their fancy at a given time. Simply horrifying.
-OC
GREAT POST. This really hit the nail on the head and I couldn’t agree with you more. Our Supreme Court system is heading towards a state of decline.
If they don’t like this guy then he is probably going to be a good justice. Although, I have to admitt that I have a few concerns myself.
If there was ever a better endorsement, it’s to have the AntiChrist’s Luciferian Utopia opposed to your nomination.
I believe Judge Roberts did an excellent job of pointing out the dangers of using International precedent and explaining exactly why he opposes it.
The more I watch and listen to this man, the more confident I am that he will make an excellent Chief justice.
The ACLU has just cause to be concerned. Before this confirmation is over, they will be breaking out the diapers.