posted September 13, 2005 03:28 PM              

---

One Question For Nominee Roberts

The Real Question That Must Be Discussed

By Jim Kirwan
kirwanstudios@earthlink.net
9-13-5

There is only one major question that must be answered by any appointee who is being considered for the United States Supreme Court, and that question goes directly to the heart and soul of this nation because it deals directly with "The Rule of Law."

This nominee should be asked how he would have voted on the question of The Bush Election Campaign vs. Al Gore, back in 2000: because the decision of the Supreme Court to intervene at that juncture in the National Presidential Election of 2000 quite literally changed the course of history. Specifically Mr. Roberts should be asked how he would have voted, not on the outcome of the case - but as to whether or not the Court should have agreed to hear that case at all. What is and was at issue is whether he would have honored the law and declined to interfere, or whether he would have ignored the constitution and chosen to hear the case as the Rehnquist Court ultimately decided to do.

In these hearings much will be made of "the Rule of Law" but if the nominee is not clear about the separation of powers or when that line between branches of the federal government can be crossed: then regardless of any other qualifications that nominee should be denied the appointment. If this Congress does anything less then they will be complicit and active co-sponsors of the original treason, which was committed by Rehnquist, Kennedy, Scalia, O'Conner and Thomas.

There are eighteen Senators who will be asking questions of this man, but unless this question becomes a part of the hearings, and is discussed, the American public will not have been served by this on-going exercise in the ratification of the continuing crime that has haunted the federal courts and the government since that Supreme-Gang-of-Five broke the "Rule of Law" on 12, 12, 2000

IP: Logged

Posts: 4415
From: Pleasanton, CA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted September 13, 2005 05:07 PM            

---

I'm not sure that this is true. It's a nice rant, but how would the situation have resolved itself back then if the court didn't hear the case?

If the court refused to get involved, then normal election rules would be implicated, which would have had the exact same outcome. Going to court had the potential of helping Gore's campaign.

I think there was also an element of wanting to show the world that our governmental system still works --that we don't make crisis' out of elections even when they're close and tough to call.

IP: Logged

posted September 14, 2005 04:08 PM              

---

I think the author is on the right path with this article. Not 100% correct, but there is a picture forming...

As a holder of a Legal Studies degree, I am shocked by how much most people don't understand about the court system, at ANY LEVEL, small claims in your own town all the way up to Supreme Court. I was very lucky to have the chance to take advanced levels of Constitutional Issues at a different college in St. Louis to count for credit towards my degree.

The question is this IMHO: Is the judge interpreting the law as it was written AND based on the precedent already on record? This is the job of a Supreme Court Justice.No person bias or views brought on the job. Period.

Reminds me of my own state's Attorney General. http://64.2 33.167.104/search?q=cache:rrNav_Z839sJ:www.claytoncramer.com/Judicial%2520Review%2520Good%2520and%2520Bad.pdf+missouri+jay+nixon+concealed+weapons&hl=en
He's Democrat Jay Nixon, and opposed the "Concealed Carried Weapons" law that the Legislature of Missouri made into law without a public vote in 2003.(Last public vote to issue permits failed.) After a case raised in a St. Louis circuit (based on the Missouri Constitution's interpretation of the right) made it to the Missouri Supreme Court, the right to carry won, and A.G. Nixon has and IS still enforcing the right to carry throughout the state.

NOW THAT'S WHAT HE GETS PAID TO DO! Yay!
Does it mean everyone agrees with him? NO. But he overwhelmingly win his latest term in office again in 2004. He's been in this position since 1992.

It's easy to look back and say what should have/have not happened with the 2000 presidential election. Yes, it involved one state, therefore it should have stayed within its boundries. Yet it involved a federal "issue" with great importance to the health of the nation.

Now it's just a coulda/woulda/shoulda been. Can't go back and change anything, except that we *hopefully* learn from this experience.

Now watch out for the CHADS!

Angela

------------------
Scorpio/Leo/Leo

"All things are bound together. All things connect." Chief Seattle

IP: Logged