Thursday, November 17, 2005

Dems want liberal judge ... or else

Democrats said yesterday that Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr.'s confirmation is not guaranteed as senators kept the focus on a 20-year-old document in which the Supreme Court nominee asserted that the Constitution "does not protect a right to an abortion."

Judge Alito's job-application essay "may explain why the extreme right wing is popping champagne corks," Mr. Reid said. "We learned of the 1985 memo in which he said, 'I am and always have been a conservative.’”

"He wrote, among other things, that he was particularly proud of his work to advance the position that the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion," he said. "That statement cannot be dismissed as a personal view that will not affect how Judge Alito will approach the legal issue."

Sen. Olympia J. Snowe, a Maine Republican who is pro-choice, said she remained undecided after meeting with the nominee yesterday.

She said Judge Alito agreed with the theory that even if a case had been wrongly decided, deference should be granted to any case that has become "embedded as part of national culture."

Mrs. Snowe was asked whether she would oppose Judge Alito if she determined that he would overturn Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision that established abortion rights.

"Yeah," she responded. "That would be a serious issue for me."

A 20-year-old document showing Judge Alito's view against abortion has brought new arguments against him from the Democrats and the 'moderate' Republicans.

In the argument they stress the importance of protecting abortion, even calling it a 'privacy' issue. I still wonder how killing a baby is considered 'privacy'. If that is the case then isn't a murderer protected under privacy, or is it only if he/she murders his/her own child? Can a child be abused and it be considered 'privacy'? Where is this 'Constitutional privacy' when agencies such as 'child protective services' come knocking on a persons door?

So a child in a struggling household that has a week of one meal a day is protected and there is no 'privacy', but to murder one is ok?

Is this argument sounding crazy? Well so does 'privacy' to protect murdering babies.

The real issue here is not only that abortion exists, but why is it that the Democrats are pulling out all the stops to protect abortion yet claiming to not have a 'litmus test'? It has become apparent that any judicial nominee is approvable to them IF they are liberal, or at least believe in abortion.

Agenda is first in the Democrat book. Abortion, gay 'rights', anti-weapons, ... it would appear they intend to destroy the Constitution from the bench rather than protect it.

Here’s a news flash for all interested on how and what The Supreme Courts duties are. They INTERPRET the Constitution. Bottom line is that they SET precedent, not FOLLOW it, yet in the above article there is a push to preserve the status quo rather than determine if it actually is Constitutional or not.

So here we are with the cries of “He’s to Conservative”. I ask you, is he more conservative than
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is liberal?

A few highlights of concern …

Law Teaching -
Columbia Law School Project on International Procedure

Law Practice and Professional Activities - American Civil Liberties Union: Women's Rights Project, Founder and Counsel (1972-80): Council on Foreign Relations (1975-).

Legal Writing -
Books authored include: Civil Procedure in Sweden (1965) (with Anders Bruzelius); Text, Cases, and Materials on Sex-Based Discrimination (1974) (with Herma Hill Kay and Kenneth M. Davidson).

What we have here is an ‘Internationalist’. A Supreme Court Justice who is in charge of interpreting the U.S. Constitution and make precedent who thinks we need foreign law to be considered. One who has studied, and wrote about these foreign laws, taught them, and believes in them is sitting on the U.S. Supreme Court deciding the future of America?

Having written/spoken to the American Society for INTERNATIONAL LAW


I will address, specifically, the evolving appreciation that U. S. judges are not alone in the endeavor to interpret fundamental human rights norms and apply them to concrete cases. What impact, if any, that reality should have on our decision-making has proved controversial, as this audience well knows.

I will state and endeavor to explain my view, which is simply this: If U. S. experience and decisions can be instructive to systems that have more recently instituted or invigorated judicial review for constitutionality, so we can learn from others now engaged in measuring ordinary laws and executive actions against charters securing basic rights.

National, multinational and international human rights charters and courts today play a prominent part in our world. The U. S. judicial system will be the poorer, I believe, if we do not both share our experience with, and learn from, legal systems with values and a commitment to democracy similar to our own.

Returning to my own perspective, while U. S. jurisprudence has evolved over the course of
two centuries of constitutional adjudication, we are not so wise that we have nothing to learn from other democratic legal systems newer to judicial review for constitutionality.

[i]nternational law is part of our law, and must be ascertained and administered by the courts of justice . . . . [W]here there is no treaty, and no controlling executive or legislative
act or judicial decision, resort must be had to the customs and usages of civilized nations.

These are but a few highlights that should cause concern. It goes on from these, and gets worse as she tries to justify her argument with outright spin to the writers of the Constitution. To claim, for example, that post WWII constitutions of other nations have written in them the use or not of laws of other nations, and compare that the U.S. does not is a travesty of understanding history.

Any person can logically conclude that in a time of no ‘technology’ and a people fleeing oppression of government, there would be no desire to consider said oppressive laws. There would be no recent knowledge of new laws, and no requirement to take such detail in the creation of new government and laws.

Ruth Bader Ginsberg who is without argument a staunch liberal, an ‘internationalist’, served as the chief litigator of the ACLU's women's rights crusade (the A.C.L.U. whom many know was founded by a communist for communist gains), etc.

Compared to Judge Alito whom now is asked to state his views on abortion or else not be comfirmable. Justice Ginsgerg, however, refused to answer questions regarding her personal views on most issues or how she would adjudicate certain hypothetical situations as a Supreme Court Justice. This was acceptable to the Democrats, possibly because they already knew she advocated abortion.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg is and was a known liberal. Futher study into her writings and history will prove nothing but the fact that she is more likely than not more liberal than assumed. This was well known at the time of her confirmation.

At the same time we hear cries of “to conservative” from Democrats about Judge Alito. Is he more conservative than Ginsberg is liberal? NO.

At the same time they are concerned that he may vote against ‘precident’, specifically regarding abortion.

Isn’t it interesting that one of Ruth Bader Ginsbergs claim to fame is …

She argued in front of the Supreme Court numerous times, winning cases that reversed centuries of Court precedent.

Listed on BlogShares