John Roberts is Not Qualified

I have mentioned before that the role of the Senate in confirming Supreme Court nominees is to simply determine if they are qualified to be judges. The Democrats continue to want to apply litmus tests to judges, specifically, any judge who does not support Roe v. Wade 100% is absolutely NOT qualified.

However, the actual qualifications for a judge are much simpler than even that. To be qualified, a judge must be capable of upholding the Constitution and must understand that the role of a Supreme Court Judge is to simply interpret the Constitution -- nothing more. Judge John Roberts has proven that he cannot do this.

He has said in response to some cases that the Supreme Court's decisions are "settled" and "have become law." This means that he will never, ever vote to overturn any previous supreme court decision -- he thinks that the Supreme Court MAKES laws. He is wrong.

He also ruled that the federal judiciary can go into a state and overturn laws that do not conflict with the Constitution in any way, shape, or form. If the people of a state make laws that he does not agree with, he believes it is within his power as a federal judge to force the people of the state to change their own laws. He is wrong.

Ann Coulter says he's another Souter (ultra-left wing judge hostile to freedom and the Constitution), and I think she's right. He is not qualified to be on the United States Supreme Court and President George W. Bush should withdraw his name and present someone who will do the job properly.

Posted by: Ogre at 10:36 AM

Comments

1 I am not sure I agree entirely. He is not a strict constitutionalist, true. But we just can't know how he will rule. He doesn't even know until faced with the situation.

He may drop out anyway, what with the times digging into the adoptions of his children.

Posted by: Oddybobo at August 05, 2005 11:16 AM (6Gm0j)

2 I'm saying that he has ALREADY ruled this way. He has already said these things. He believes the role of the Supreme Court is to MAKE laws. That is just wrong. He has ALREADY ruled that amendments to state constitutions, passed by the people of that state, can be rather simply overturned by a federal judge who doesn't like them. That is WRONG.

Posted by: Ogre at August 05, 2005 11:25 AM (/k+l4)

3 Oh I agree that he has been wrong in his rulings on state's rights. You are correct in pointing out how he has already ruled. But too, he is correct that the rulings by the Supreme Court have become law. That is different than saying the Supreme Court makes laws (if only semantics).

The Supreme Court, all the courts, make law. Each time they hand down a ruling it becomes precedential to lower courts, or in lay terms - the law. Right or wrong, that is what it is.

Posted by: oddybobo at August 05, 2005 12:12 PM (6Gm0j)

4 Only a lawyer would use that reasoning

If it's wrong, I'm going to say it's wrong, and it will always be wrong, no matter how many people want to say that's the way it is. The Supreme Court DOES NOT make laws. That's what the legislature does. The judges interpret laws and DO NOT make them. I know you know the difference I'm talking about here, but I don't think Robert's does -- that's what bothers me the most.

Posted by: Ogre at August 05, 2005 12:59 PM (/k+l4)

5 Did you expect me to use any other reasoning? I can't help it, it's the evil lawyer in me

Don't get me wrong, I wanted a strict constitutionalist there. Me to be exact.

Posted by: Oddybobo at August 05, 2005 01:12 PM (6Gm0j)

6 And I voted for you, too! Twice.

Posted by: Ogre at August 05, 2005 02:07 PM (L0IGK)






Processing 0.0, elapsed 0.0063 seconds.
18 queries taking 0.0044 seconds, 14 records returned.
Page size 7 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.