After the Judiciary Committee’s confirmation on Goodwin Liu, Sen. Leahy made some assinine comments that are worth highlighting:
Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy. D-Vt., on Friday accused Republicans of applying a double standard in Liu’s case. He said that in the past he had supported GOP-selected conservative, activist court nominees after they pledged they would be impartial on the bench.
“I hope they will give the same credence to professor Liu’s assurances that he understands the proper role of a judge,” Leahy said. “I hope they will keep the same open mind kept by Democratic senators…I hope they will not apply a double-standard to this extraordinary nominee,” he added.
I’d love hearing Sen. Leahy’s definition of what a conservative activist justice is. I’m betting he’s refering to Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito. In his warped mind, I suspect that he thinks undoing the damage done by true activist judges is activism in its own right. He’s wrong if that’s what he thinks.
The reason he’s wrong if that’s what he’s thinking is because Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito literally apply the Constitution in making their rulings. That isn’t judicial activism. It’s what justices routinely did before progressives packed the courts with justices who thought of the Constitution as an impediment to their progressive agenda.
During Chief Justice Roberts’ confirmation hearing, Sen. Durbin asked him what assurances he could have that Chief Justice would “side with the little guy.” Chief Justice Roberts replied that “Every time the law is on the little guy’s side, I’ll rule in his favor.” I wish I would’ve seen a picture of the Democrats’ faces after hearing that answer.
What’s made the United States great was adhering to the belief that we’re “a nation of laws, not men.” Anytime that we don’t adhere to that principle, everyone suffers longterm. Either our rights protect everyone or they don’t protect anyone.
As for Sen. Leahy’s saying he hopes Republicans “will keep the same open mind kept by Democratic senators”,I hope for something just a little different. I hope that Republicans will remember the brass-knuckled tactics that the Democrats used in filibustering President Bush’s district court nominees.
Let’s remember that the Democrats argued that Chief Justice Roberts wasn’t qualified for the role of Chief Justice because he wasn’t experienced enough. Let’s remember that the reason his experience was shortened was because Democrats filibustered the confirmation of John Roberts. Isn’t that like kids that kill their parents, then beg the mercy of the court because they’re orphans?
To be fair, I understand how Sen. Leahy thinks that strict constructionist judges like Roberts, Alito, Scalia and Thomas are activist jurists. Sen. Leahy thinks it’s a revolutionary thing to actually adhere to the Constitution. In a way, he’s right. Found in that document are the principles that our Founding Fathers fought a revolutionary war over.
Think of it this way: Roberts, Alito, Scalia and Thomas all point to the genius of the Founding Fathers. That’s a good thing in the eyes of most people. To corrupt politicians like Sens. Leahy, Durbin, Specter and Schumer, that’s something to abolish.
The good news is that We The People have the final vote on Sens. Leahy, Durbin, Specter and Schumer this November. We won’t vote them all out of office but we will take away their authority by winning, winning and more winning.
We can’t afford senators that confirm make-the-rules-as-we-go-along judges. We can’t afford more of that type of activism.
Technorati: Pat Leahy, Chuck Schumer, Dick Durbin, Arlen Specter, Goodwin Liu, Activist Judges, Democrats, John Roberts, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Strict Constructionists
Cross-posted at California Conservative
There are the five idiots that handed down the Citizens United decision.
Persons are humans. Corporations are creations of statute, pooled risk entities.
The notion that constitutional rights of humans should go to a fiction, is a fiction.
You’ll forgive me if I don’t notice anywhere in the First Amendment’s text that it only protects people’s right to free speech.
While it’s true that corporations & unions can’t contribute to a candidate, that isn’t the same as forbidding constitutional protections of free speech to corporations. That’s like saying that consumer groups could attack corporations & they wouldn’t have the constitutional right to defend themselves.
That boat won’t float in this Constitutionalist’s harbor.