Judge Roberts Comments

[lasersailor184]

No Nash, that's not what we are talking about.


A supreme court judge's only job is to determine the constitutionality of a case.

Activist judges go out and rewrite laws.  They don't say, "No, that law is no good."

They say, "No, here's what the law should be."

[Nash]

Yeah whatever laser.

Anyways, Toad.....

[Toad]

TJ's offered quite a few solutions. He was pretty P.O.'d at what Marshall had gotten away with in several decisions.

One was:

"But the Chief Justice says, 'There must be an ultimate arbiter somewhere.' True, there must; but does that prove it is either party?

The ultimate arbiter is the people of the Union, assembled by their deputies in convention, at the call of Congress or of two-thirds of the States. Let them decide to which they mean to give an authority claimed by two of their organs.

And it has been the peculiar wisdom and felicity of our Constitution, to have provided this peaceable appeal, where that of other nations is at once to force." --Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823. ME 15:451

I kind of like that one. Clear the air, let the people speak. Would have been better if they'd have done it in Jefferson's time, though, while the memory of the Revolution was fresh and people understood governmental oppression.

Here's another one of his that I think has real merit.

"Let the future appointments of judges be for four or six years and renewable by the President and Senate. This will bring their conduct at regular periods under revision and probation, and may keep them in equipoise between the general and special governments. We have erred in this point by copying England, where certainly it is a good thing to have the judges independent of the King. But we have omitted to copy their caution also, which makes a judge removable on the address of both legislative houses." --Thomas Jefferson to William T. Barry, 1822. ME 15:389

More directly though, Jefferson's solution to Judicial usurpation of the Constitution was States Rights. This article is pretty good, although you have to read it all and kind of slowly to get the picture.

What States Rights Really Mean

The "Cliffs Notes" is this:

...To the suggestion that the Supreme Court was the ultimate arbiter, the drafters of these documents had yet another question: how can the federal courts function as impartial umpires between the federal government and the states when they themselves are part of the federal government?...

...The primary issue was the acts’ dubious constitutionality. Jefferson based part of his objection on their violation of the First Amendment, but noted that they violated the Tenth Amendment as well. Nowhere had the states delegated any authority to the federal government to pass legislation pertaining to the freedom of speech or press. In doing so, then, the federal government had encroached on a state prerogative. For Jefferson, who spoke of binding men by the chains of the Constitution, immediate action was necessary lest such federal usurpations begin to multiply....

....As far as Jefferson could see, the only way in which a state could both remain in the Union and retain its liberties in the face of an unconstitutional act on the part of the federal government was for the state to declare that by virtue of its being unconstitutional, the federal action was null and void and would not be enforced within the borders of that state. (He and others did indeed entertain and reply to the various objections to such an idea.)...

That's a pretty radical idea, isn't it? And put forth by the guy that (mostly) wrote the Constitution. We've drifted a long way from where he intended us to go.

Sure puts the Civil War in a different light. Wonder what TJ would have told Abe about the states rights to secede.  

[Nash]

Do you want for your country a Europe? Many regions divided? Picking and choosing those laws that are acceptable and discarding those that aren't? Would you be as strong?

Because:

"...The only way in which a state could both remain in the Union and retain its liberties in the face of an unconstitutional act on the part of the federal government was for the state to declare that by virtue of its being unconstitutional, the federal action was null and void and would not be enforced within the borders of that state.

That's just way of saying "If our state does not agree with the laws, then those laws will not apply within this state." But that leaves us with the question: What is a state if not for the common laws that bind states together for their collective good?

Taken to the extent, if every state picked and chose only those laws which were acceptable to them, then what would the country be but a collection of regions divided, not unlike Europe?

As long as you can (and I'm not making that assumption) agree that as a nation there ought be binding national laws, who then is best suited to look after them? The Congress? Or the Courts, whose members the Congress ultimately decides?

[Toad]

I don't think Jefferson ever thought the States would become this subservient to the Federal government. I believe he'd be amazed at where we are now and wonder how the heck that happened.

His solution was to ask the people whether they wanted the SC or the Congress to decide issues of Constitutionality. Didn't happen, unfortunately.

He also never meant the government to remain as static as it has.

We may consider each generation as a distinct nation, with a right, by the will of its majority, to bind themselves, but none to bind the succeeding generation, more than the habitants of another country.

Thomas Jefferson

[Nash]

Interesting quote, though I'm not completely sure what it means. Is it in fact making the case for the Constitution being a living document... with each successive generation interpreting it as they may? I'm no doubt getting it wrong...

But to the core issue, you would have Congress be the final arbiters (and ultimately, the unchecked amenders) of the Constitution, not the courts. There was much that I'm sure Jefferson didn't anticipate. The swarm of lobbyists, for example. I don't particularly like Congress' track record  - especially of late - so I cannot imagine giving the Congress carte blanche when it comes to the Constitution. I guess we just disagree here.

[Charon]

Personally, there is a lot of stuff I will likely disagree with from Roberts, some I will likely agree with. And maybe even some positions mainstream Republicans will disagree with like social issues near and dear to the Soccer Moms and perhaps some privacy issues.

He SEEMs actually a more moderate candidate than one might expect (though that may not be true in practice) and you can't off hand assume that he personally agreed 100 percent with the cases he argued for others.

Regardless, this is one of the potential issues with any presidential election (and clearly understood with this one), the candidate no doubt represents Bush's core, stated platform and Bush won. Like it or not, put him in and move on to the next one.

Charon

[Toad]

No, I think you have it right. He also said:

"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty....

And what country can preserve its liberties, if it's rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."  - Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 (C.J. Boyd, Ed., 1950)

He clearly did not like the power the courts had usurped.

"At the establishment of our constitutions, the judiciary bodies were supposed to be the most helpless and harmless members of the government.

Experience, however, soon showed in what way they were to become the most dangerous; that the insufficiency of the means provided for their removal gave them a freehold and irresponsibility in office; that their decisions, seeming to concern individual suitors only, pass silent and unheeded by the public at large; that these decisions, nevertheless, become law by precedent, sapping, by little and little, the foundations of the constitution, and working its change by construction, before any one has perceived that that invisible and helpless worm has been busily employed in consuming its substance.

In truth, man is not made to be trusted for life, if secured against all liability to account."

[Toad]

I'm starting to believe Jefferson was prescient:

"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them" - Thomas Jefferson

I think we failed that test.

[DoctorYO]

A supreme court judge's only job is to determine the constitutionality of a case.

Being a florida resident ...  the supreme court has much more power than you think..  look at the world today..  

believe it or not the supreme court made the world what it is today..  Just refresh your 2000 election process..

So with that in mind thats why the dems got their panties in a bunch..  

Also considering his age, and hence a potential era for the justice doesn't help..  its rather strange george doesn't use a current justice (Scalia and Thomas come to mind) and promote them to chief.. instead trying to solidify a nominee into the position for many years to come..  Hence giving advantage on issues to one policitcal party over another for years to come..

Thats the big issue here...  stacking the judiciary with bias, longevity or both to gain political advantage imo is wrong...  regardless of your partisanship..  

personally i dont think roberts is really out of line or a poor canidate..  but when as a rookie he is nominated for chief justice that questions the credibility of the presidents choice..



DoctorYo

[Clifra Jones]

Originally posted by lasersailor184
And the democratic rebuttle:

A wise man once said: "The poor will always be with you". No truer statement was ever made. The best thing we can do for the poor is to pave the road ahead of them with opportunity not handouts and make sure that the bandits are kept off that road.

When it comes to the poorest among us, especially those descendants of the former slaves of this nation we have failed miserably over the last 50 years, because the leftist/socialist has no true desire to end the suffering of those poor folk by allowing them to achieve success in the free markets of America. For to do so renders them obsolete. It is only through the expansion of the proletariat do they solidify their political power.

Beware the man who looks upon you with the lust for power in his eyes and tells you what he proposes is for the "common good". For much evil in this world has been wrought for the purposes of the 'common good". Many a dictator has used just such language and just such events to consolidate power into the hands of a very few. Only our vigilance and our self reliance can prevent this.

They talk about disparity, what about the disparity of security in once home. Why is it, in cities across this nation, cities predominantly controlled by those who claim to be the "enlightened ones" is the law not enforced in the poorest and yes the 'blackest' communities? Is it because they prize the 'civil rights' of the crack dealer over the right of a parent to have a safe community for their children? Would the crack dealers and the gang warriors be allowed to set up shop in the wealthiest and 'whitest' communities in those cities? The answer is an obvious no. It is because crime and desperation keeps them for achieving the success that those on the left so desperately do not want them to achieve.

Those who spoke this day represent a political philosophy that has held the purse strings of this nation for many decades, they have held the raines of power in many of the cities and states where these poor 'black' communities exist and they still hold the power over much of the educational systems of this nation. Their track record is one of abysmal failure. Yet there are many in this nation and many within these communities that "Though they have eyes they fail to see".

Poverty can not be legislated away.

Poverty cannot be solved with a handout, only a hand up.

If you give a man a fish you feed him for a day, teach him to fish and you feed him for life.

There are no greater racists in modern America than the Rich White Liberals!

[Xargos]

Damn Clifra, that brought a tear to my eye.

[SaburoS]

Originally posted by Toad
I'm starting to believe Jefferson was prescient:
I think we failed that test.

You know Toad, I feel that the USA is still the best country in the world. Not perfect by any means, but I wouldn't want to trade it with any other. Failed? Naw, I give it a B-

[AKS\/\/ulfe]

Best country, yes, but it's still a far cry from being the best America.
-SW

[Gunthr]

personally i dont think roberts is really out of line or a poor canidate.. but when as a rookie he is nominated for chief justice that questions the credibility of the presidents choice.. - Dr Yo

I must disagree with the good Doctor from Florida.

Judge Roberts is not a rookie.  He is recognised by both Democrats and Republicans as a brilliant legal mind.

Dr. Yo, you are the very first person I've heard who questions Judge Roberts' judicial ability.   Not even that jowley blockhead fat-prettythang party boy Ted Kennedy or the plagerist hair club spokesperson Biden question the man's legal prowess.

You may not like him because he is conservative, but Bush has the right to nominate him.  I assume that you are liberal.  I predict your liberal representatives will confirm Judge Robertson, by and large, in spite of your assertion that he is a rookie.  Can you explain this?