Rightank

Today by a vote of 78-22, the Senate confirmed John Roberts as Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court. (Senator John Kerry (D-MA) was tardy and missed his first opportunity to voice his “NO” vote during the roll call. Apparently, Kerry received some last minute grooming before the vote). A few hours later, John Roberts was sworn in as Chief.

Fifty percent of Democratic Senators voted for Roberts. That’s pretty amazing. Even “Jumping Jim” Jeffords joined the Roberts bandwagon. “Dingy” Harry Reid led the other fractured fifty percent down another losing path.

Looking beyond the today’s confirmation, Chief Justice Roberts will likely guide the Court for the next three decades. How will he fare? Will he metamorphis into another Justice Stevens (who coincidentially adminstered him his judicial oath), or, will he hold true to the text of the Constitution which he defended in his confirmation hearings?

If Roberts jurisprudence is indeed akin to Justices Scalia and Thomas, President Bush’s selection of Roberts will be remembered as one of the greatest political manuevers in history. Ralph Neas, Michael Moore, MoveOn.org, NARAL, and the ACLU could not persuade a measley 25 Democratic Senators to vote against Roberts. The radical liberals used all their guns against Roberts and now wallow in a defeatist mire. Their methods of attack and bravado simply did not work. But, was it the method that failed to resonate or was Roberts a bulletproof nominee?

John Roberts was indeed bulletproof. He was a Superman nominee. Brandishing a squeaky-clean record, liberals and Democratic Senators like Chuck Schumer could not find any kryptonite with which to weaken Roberts confirmatory appeal.

John Roberts’s tenure as Chief will be very, very important for our country’s future. Here’s to hoping it’s a constitutional, socially conservative one.

It looks like Ted Turner’s welfare recipient, the United Nations, desires to create more international harmony by taking over the internet from the United States. The UN Report on Internet Governance, authored Chateau de Bossey, argues that the UN’s right to internet governance rests on the prevention of restrictions on freedom of speech and the dearth of multilingualism. Certainly Saudi Arabia, China, and Egypt–members of the Working Group–will assure the full participation of all citizens regardless of their polticial viewpoint or religious belief and allow political commentators like myself full reign and access on the internet.

Yeah right.

There is a big buzz in the blogosphere over the possibility that President Bush would nominate Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to the United States Supreme Court as Justice O’Connor’s replacement. Erick at Confirm Them informs that Karl Rove is pressuring W. to nominate Gonzales. Rove’s political exertion (a deft and calculated one) is likely the product of his affinity for Republican base expansion rather that one based on core, fundamental Republican principles. How much weight will Bush grant Rove? That’s hard to say or know with any degree of certainity. Electorally speaking, Rove’s recommendation would probably carry a great deal of weight. Bush’s selection of Judge Roberts (white male) was hardly an electoral move. Moreover, Bush has repeatedly promised that he would nominate judges in the mold of Scalia and Thomas. Gonzales does not oppose affirmative action like Scalia and Thomas, which is why Rove would have to paint Gonzales as conservative in order for Bush to nominate him.

Gonzales apparent campaigning for the Supreme Court nomination underscores why he is simply unfit for the Supreme Court. You shouldn’t have to campaign for your conservatism if you truly are a conservative. Strikingly, Gonzales’s reign in the AG’s office has been a silent one compared to the conservative John Ashcroft’s administration. Ashcroft was constantly berated by the MSM and liberals for his stance on the Patriot Act and conservative values he instilled while in office. Ashcroft is pro-life and opposes same-sex marriage, two views that Gonzales might or might not share.

W. needs to select the most qualified socially conservative candidate and not a good buddy. He needs to find someone opposed to same-sex marriage by judicial fiat, a man or woman who strictly interprets the Constitution and who is sufficiently grounded in their ideals that hand-wringing by the press or the law school elites will not nudge him or her into a squalid moral relativism that displaces the values of the citizenry and exalts the radical impulses of a meager few.

Gonzales, in my view, is not worthy of Bush’s nomination. Even if (and it’s a big if) Gonzales would be a justice like Scalia or Thomas, Bush must appoint someone with verifiable and weatherworn conservative credentials–credentials The Honorable Alberto Gonzales does not possess.

Rightank is undergoing a theme change. Thanks to Richard for the awesome theme design and allowing fellow WordPress bloggers the opportunity to creatively use it!

Other stylistic changes will gradually be phased in over the next month. Look forward to ‘em!

Recently, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad ranted in the terrorist-friendly United Nations declaring Iran’s right to enrich nuclear fuel. Of course, Mahmoud claims Iran is engaging in nuclear fuel activities for “peaceful purposes” while the United States is trying to play “nuclear apartheid” with Iran. In other words, the Iranian President says “Trust me.” Can we really trust Iran?

Well, let’s see. Iran sponsors the premier terrorist organization in the world, Hezbollah, with lots and lots of petro dollars. Also, Iran is sending terrorists into Iraq to stir the Muslim pot and create unrest for the Iraqis as they make headway toward a new constitution. I think Mahmoud should re-think the “peaceful purpose” and “nuclear apartheid” part of his speech.

Then yesterday, the European Union decided against refering Iran to the UN for violations of the nuclear nonproliferation treaty.

Iran is a serious problem. I’m currently reading an excellent book on Iran’s nuclear ambitions called Atomic Iran. Author Jerome Corsi warns about the danger of Iran and how their funneling of money to different terrorist organizations combined with their unquenchable ambition for nuclear weapons presents a clear and present danger to America’s national security. He also has some great one-liners. Here’s one worth remembering:

If Osama bin Laden could find a state that would appoint him its ambassador to the United Nations, the U.N. no doubt would have a seat for him in the General Assembly.

Once again, the world community buckles and refuses to stand up to Iran. We Americans live in troubling times and an Iran with nuclear armaments will increase those troubles dramatically.

Yesterday, Senator Arlen Specter announced he was supporting President Bush’s nomination of Judge Roberts as Chief Justice. The question of why Specter supports the Roberts nomination is crucial in determining whom the White House will select to replace Justice O’Connor.

Specter, when he gratitiously assumed the chairmanship of the Senate Judiciary Committee, informed Bush that he would block (not support) judicial nominees that were in his view too conservative. Moreover, he warned that judges who wanted to overturn Roe would receive a not-so-welcome reception.

Roe plays the central role in Specter’s judicial nominee analysis. In his comments on the Senate floor, Specter stated the following:

When it came to the critical question of Roe v. Wade, I did not ask him whether he would affirm or reject the Roe doctrine. I did not do so because I believe it is inappropriate to ask a nominee how he would decide a specific case.

As chairman, it was my view that any member could ask the nominee any question that the member chose to, and the nominee would be free to respond as he chose. Beyond refraining from specifically asking whether he would affirm or overrule Roe v. Wade, others and I questioned him extensively about the import of stare decisis, the Latin term meaning “let the decision stand.” He emphasized that stare decisis was a very important principle in the law and that even where a justice might consider Roe wrongly decided, it takes more to overturn a precedent than simply to conclude it was wrongly decided initially. Because–and this is Arlen Specter speaking, not Judge Roberts–where the case has stood for some 32 years and has been reaffirmed most emphatically in Casey v. Planned Parenthood, it has become, as some have called it, a super precedent.

I then made the point that the Supreme Court had taken up the issue so that Roe could have been reversed, overruled on some 38 occasions. Should it come before the Court again, perhaps the balance of the 38 cases would make super-duper precedent to uphold Roe.

If Judge Roberts’s view on abortion/Roe is the “critical question” and Roe has reached “super-duper” Specter-status, (Shouldn’t the words “super-duper” be reserved exclusively for cartoon characters like Scooby Doo?) then Specter has reaffirmed his earlier stance–that Roe is sacrosanct, and that any Supreme Court nominee who doesn’t believe in Roe as a super-duper precedent will get the political finger from Specter.

President Bush took a gamble in supporting Specter’s chairmanship. Now, how will he roll the dice with O’Connor’s replacement? Most conservatives are happy with the Roberts pick, however, there definitely are some legitmate questions on how he will rule on moral issues like same-sex marriage and partial-birth abortion. Also, most conservatives (myself included) would prefer O’Connor’s replacement to be someone in the mold of Scalia and Thomas that is verifiable and proven, like Judge Michael Luttig.

Will Bush risk upseting Specter and nominate a true, principled conservative without the cloak of Roberts? The Supreme Court is in dire need of a transformation from its activist and internationalist charades. Specter should not be in a position to block such a nomination and Bush will have to dig deep to overcome Specter’s carping if he nominates someone like Luttig. However, the conservative base would be overjoyous to support such a nominee and would be willing to take off the gloves and fight for the nomination’s success. Conservatives won the election for Bush. Now, Mr. President, it’s time for payback. Please nominate a conservative to replace Justice O’Connor. Specter and his amorous relationship with Roe and her precedents should not stop a true, verifiable conservative, from sitting on the Court next to Scalia, Thomas, and yes Chief Justice Roberts.

For the second time, Michael Newdow has trumpeted his atheistic view of the First Amendment’s Religion Clauses and convinced a federal judge to rule that it is unconstitutional for school kids to recite the Pledge of Allegiance.

Atheist Jim Lindgren, blogging at the Volokh Conspiracy, said he feels that “[t]he words “under God” have no business being in the Pledge of Allegiance, no matter how religious the country currently is or was.” A reader made the following astute comment:

I have no problem with the idea, but can we change the phrase “under God” to “under Allah” for us Muslims?

Touché.

Judge Roberts blew away the Democratic Senators who attempted to finnagle Roberts into an unfortunate verbal misstep. Yet again, Roberts proved to be their match. According to Senator Durbin, he’s the best nominee he’s ever seen.

I take umbrage with Senator Schumer’s assertion in the hearing today regarding Justices Scalia and Thomas. To say that the distinguised jurists, albeit conservative, are attempting to “turn back a century of progress” through their jurisprudence begs an antecedent question. That is, how does Schumer define “progress”? Does he define it as Supreme Court decisions that adore affirmative action or diversity and substitute their own unelected morality for the judgment of a state’s representative body? Primarily, it seems for Schumer’s questioning of Roberts that “progress” means any decision involving the “right of privacy,” affirmative action, or sustains the Senate’s interpretation of the Commerce Clause in its lawmaking. Schumer’s view of progress is one that rejects the Constitution and places in its stead a dynamic, modernized, and judge-made law which disguises itself as constitutional. Perhaps, Schumer hates Scalia and Thomas so much because they are principled jurists, and principle is not a quality that Schumer seems to hold in as high regard.

I’ve been able to listen to the vast majority of the Judge Roberts hearings these past two days. Likely, if you have no background in the law much of the content of the hearings is mired in legalese and case law that you much rather watch Barney with your kids. Well, not quite that boring.

I believe that the Democratic Senators chummed along (and Senator Specter) humming the abortion tune or rather “a woman’s right to choose.” Also, the Democratic Senators seem to feel, particularly Senators Schumer and Biden, that the Nation’s civil liberties lie in a radical interpretation of the 14th Amendment’s Due Process Clause rather than the text of the Constitution itself. The placement of the American citizen’s liberty in the Judiciary instead of the Constitution sheds light on what branch of government the Liberals place their political faith.

It is vitally important that Republicans ferret out more fully Judge Robert’s judicial philosophy. In the hearings today, some good things came out regarding Judge Roberts. In my view, Senators Kyl (R-AZ) and Senator Graham (R-SC) were the best questioners, especially Senator Graham.

Role of International Law

Senator Kyl asked Judge Roberts “What, if anything, is the proper role of foreign law in U.S. Supreme Court decisions?” Judge Roberts responded as follows:

[A]s a general matter, . . . there are a couple of things that cause concern on my part about the use of foreign law as precedent. As you say, this isn’t about interpreting treaties or foreign contracts but as precedent on the meaning of American law. The first has to do with democratic theory. Judicial decisions: In this country, judges, of course, are not accountable to the people, but we are appointed through a process that allows for participation of the electorate. The president who nominates judges is obviously accountable to the people. Senators who confirm judges are accountable to people. And in that way, the role of the judge is consistent with the democratic theory.

If we’re relying on a decision from a German judge about what our Constitution means, no president accountable to the people appointed that judge and no Senate accountable to the people confirmed that judge. And yet he’s playing a role in shaping the law that binds the people in this country. I think that’s a concern that has to be addressed. The other part of it that would concern me is that, relying on foreign precedent doesn’t confine judges. It doesn’t limit their discretion the way relying on domestic precedent does. Domestic precedent can confine and shape the discretion of the judges. Foreign law, you can find anything you want. If you don’t find it in the decisions of France or Italy, it’s in the decisions of Somalia or Japan or Indonesia or wherever. As somebody said in another context, looking at foreign law for support is like looking out over a crowd and picking out your friends. You can find them. They’re there. And that actually expands the discretion of the judge. It allows the judge to incorporate his or her own personal preferences, cloak them with the authority of precedent–because they’re finding precedent in foreign law–and use that to determine the meaning of the Constitution. And I think that’s a misuse of precedent, not a correct use of precedent.

Judge Roberts’s view on international law is comforting, particularly as the most recent, radical decisions from the Court have relied on international law as a basis for its decision (Lawrence v. Texas comes to mind). International law should play no role at all in the Supreme Court’s decision-making regarding what our Constitution means. As Judge Roberts articulated today, a justice’s reliance on international law allows him or her to cloak their own personal policy preferences as legitimate by citing tailored international law that fits their interpretative rationale. A Supreme Court Justice’s reliance on international law weakens our democracy and subverts our national sovereignty.

Strict Constructionist

Senator Graham’s questioning was particularly acute and probing. His approach to questioning is one which I would have liked to have seen more by the Republicans. Although the transcript is not yet available, I remember him asking Judge Roberts whether he was comfortable being described as a strict constructionist by President Bush. Judge Roberts said “Yes.” This is important, as Judge Roberts never has characterized himself, in speaking of judicial philosophy as a “strict constructionist.” According to Judge Roberts, his philosophy does not fit a particular label but is a “practical” jurist. It appears, thanks to Senator Graham, that Judge Roberts will adhere to the text of the Constitution rather than making up his own on a whim. That is good news.

What did trouble me in listening to Judge Roberts’s testimony was his opinion regarding substantive due process and the “right to privacy.” However, if Confirm Them is right, Roberts went one better that Thomas by discarding the penumbral approach of Justice Blackmun as judicial blather. Good for him.

Four years ago, radical extremist Islamofacist suicidal maniac terrorists rammed two passenger airplanes into the World Trade Center, a third into the front of the Pentagon. A fourth, derailed by American heroes, plunged into a Pennsylvania field. 9/11’s memory is seared in my mind. I remember the images of the planes firebombing the Twin Towers . . . or of Americans throwing themselves out of 50-story windows to plunge to their death to escape the fires and flames in the World Trade Center . . . or NYPD fireman who refused to stop saving lives–and refused to stop digging for their comrades who perished under tons of jagged concrete and steel remnants of the Twin Towers. I can never forget.

One of the lessons of 9/11 is that America is vulnerable to terrorism inside our borders. To attack the problem, we as a Nation needed to do two things: (1) Nationally, secure our borders and (2) Internationally, exterminate Muslim extremists abroad. Our reaction internationally–invading, conquering, and democratizing Afghanistan and Iraq–was the right reaction. However, our reaction nationally, despite some forms of toughening, has been abismal. Our border security along the Mexican and Candian border is insufficent and does not inhibit Muslim terrorists from illegally entering our country. The success of the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps glaringly illustrates the type of commitment to liberty and security that our federal government is unwilling to make. A reasonable person would think that if a majority of the 9/11 terrorists entered the country illegally, that the government would marshall our tax dollars aimed at correcting that problem. Unfortunately, that has not happened.

Despite our shortcomings internally, we have not had another terrorist attack on our soil in four years. That is quite an accomplishment. Certainly, our vigor in pursuing the terrorist threat abroad has limited any type of terrorist attack on our soil. But, in order to have another terror-free year (not years), the federal government must retreat from the political correctness that is hampering our border problem. Until the border is fixed, then the same method of entry that led to the loss of over 3,000 American lives will lead to the deaths of thousands more.