tinyurl.com/7gghk -> www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1441394/posts
CHARLITE With Sandra Day OConnors recent resignation from the US Supreme Court and the expected resignation of Chief Justice William Rehnquist, there is no shortage of talk about who should replace them. Senate liberals de mand that the President unite America by nominating a moderate, consen sus candidate. They further demand that the President consult with them and allow them to pre-approve the nominee. Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) argues that these nominations are an opport unity for President Bush to bring the country together. By this, Schume r means that the President should appoint the sort of judge that John Ke rry would have appointed had he won. The fact is, it doesnt much matter who the President appoints; Senate Democrats will label them unacceptab le and extreme. Yet, it is the liberals who make the extreme and unreaso nable demands. All conservatives request is that the President keeps his campaign promise to appoint judges who will faithfully interpret the Co nstitution and not abuse their lifetime appointment to impose their poli tical will on America. Schumer also demands that the President work with Senate Democrats to fin d acceptable nominees and cites Bill Clintons conversations with Senato r Orrin Hatch (R-UT) as the precedent. There is one problem with this ex ample President Clinton worked with Senate Republicans because they we re the majority party in the Senate. Bill Clinton never won a majority of Americas votes, yet he won the elec tion and as a result won the right to appoint two justices to the Suprem e Court. He had to work with the majority party in the Senate, just as P resident Bush must now work with the majority party in the Senate. Even with a Republican Senate majority, Clinton was able to appoint two of th e most liberal justices now sitting on the Court. Clinton did not appoin t moderate, consensus candidates. Elections have consequences one of which is that the winners wield the power and the losers do not. Be cause President Bush won the election, he gets to name the judicial nomi nees. As a result of the last three elections, Republicans are the majority party in the Senate. Senat e Democrats wish it were otherwise, but it is not. They have the right t o vote no if they like, but they do not have enough votes by themselves to stop the confirmation of the Presidents nominees. To give them power they have not won at the ballot box, would be to permit them to steal f rom the majority of American citizens their right of self-government t he very definition of tyranny. The judicial nomination talk currently emanating from many Senate Democ rats is calculated to overturn the results of numerous elections over th e last six years. Wh en they dont win, they support whatever gives them the benefits of winn ing even if it means stealing the right of self-government from the ma jority of American citizens. They are shameless political opportunists s eeking to aggrandize their own political power nothing more. The President must ignore their temper tantrums and appoint Supreme Court justices who will faithfully interpret the Constitution. No more judges who disregard the Constitution or rely upon opinion polls and foreign l aw. Nor should the Pr esident take a chance on those who are basically conservative, but are p olitically pragmatic in their jurisprudence and lack a proven track reco rd of constitutional fidelity. We need a court that will faithfully interpret the Constitution an d leave the politics to the elected officials. That is what the Presiden t promised, what America wants, and what the President must deliver ev en if Senate Democrats and extreme special interest groups vitriolically oppose him. He had a successful law practice in business and litigation. In 1994 an d 1996, Mr Landrith was a candidate for the US House of Representativ es from Virginia's Fifth Congressional District. Mr Landrith is an adjunct professor at the Geo rge Mason School of Law. He is recognized as an authority on constitutio nal law and jurisprudence, federalism, global warming, and property righ ts.
com STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD- Found in the breaking news sidebar! We need a court that wil l faithfully interpret the Constitution and leave the politics to the el ected officials. That is what the President promised, what America wants , and what the President must deliver even if Senate Democrats and ext reme special interest groups vitriolically oppose him."
View Replies To: CHARLITE Bush should nominate Janice Rogers Brown. She'll follow the constitution, and the Dems have already admitted she is not "extreme". It would be RO FL time watching the unbridled hypocrisy as the Dems try to bash a black woman who's father was a sharecropper, and who received 76% of the vote in Kalifornia.
View Replies To: CHARLITE "Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) argues that these nominations are an oppor tunity for President Bush to bring the country together. No, Senator, the President of the United States should not use his consti tutional duty of appointing guardians of our Constitution to "bring the country together." That would be a misuse of the role the Founders envis ioned for the President. You, Leahy, Reid, and the others who are now us ing this "bring us together" line are, in fact, risking endangering the future liberty of your posterity for your Party's potential present poli tical gain. I suggest you read George Washington's Farewell Address. He described precisely what you are doing and the dangers it could present for the nation. Here is my post on another thread on this subject: The President of the United States would do well to use his time reviewin g the writings of America's Founders, its first few Presidents, and THE FEDERALIST, the series of 85 essays published in NY newspapers and writt en by James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay as expositions of the meaning and intent of the Constitution. A two-volume edition was pub lished in 1788 for use in the ratification process in the other states. According to Thomas Jefferson's record of an 1825 meeting of the Board of Visitors of the University of Virginia, the Board directed use of the 8 5 essays as the text for its law school in studies of "the general princ iples of liberty and the rights of man." Jefferson's minutes stated, "The Federalist constitute and authority to w hich appeal is habitually made by all, and rarely declined or denied by any as evidencee of the general opinion of those who framed, and of thos e who accepted the Constitution of the U S, on questions as to its gen uine meaning." For many decades, they were used as the basis for study in schools across America as a means of enlightening the minds of citizens on their Const itution. America's ideas of liberty are under attack from without, and worse, from within, by those who would deny the Constitution's basis in the philoso phy of the Declaration of Independence--Creator-endowed life, liberty, a nd rights, the foundation that distinguished it from all other constitut ions that had ever been written. Whether or not the ideas survive for posterity may well rest on the momen tous decisions this President is about to make. He does not need to consult his base, nor does he need to consult and com promise with the Left. He does need to consult the words and actions of his noble predecessors, Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Jay, and others who devised a formula for liberty which is unique in the world. L ike them, President George W Bush will be judged by future generations by his willingness to sacrifice all for the cause of liberty!
View Replies To: CHARLITE Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) argues that these nominations are an opport unity for President Bush to bring the country together. Perhaps this makes sense to those whose minds are clouded with politicall y correct mindset, but the function of a Supreme Court nominee (or any c ourt nominee) has NOTHING to do with bringing the country together or ap art.
To me, they are interchangeable, and I would be delighted with those two choices. I don't know why the president is even tolerating the Democrats' "consens us" game! It an...
|
http://csua.com/feed/