Pages

Wednesday, July 06, 2005

Supreme Court Vacancy Petition


Join grassroots citizens from around the nation who are urging the President to nominate justices who strictly adhere to the meaning and intent of the Constitution!

The resignation of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor signals the beginning of a monolithic battle over the next Supreme Court nomination. A key swing vote on some of our nation's most high-profile legal cases over the last 25 years, the absence of O'Connor will have liberal interest groups throwing open their war chests to defeat any of President Bush's Supreme Court nominees.

Even with the so-called filibuster compromise, Democrats in the Senate have all-but pledged to oppose any nominee that does not pass their liberal litmus test.

There could not be a more critical time for Americans who are desperate to see order restored to the court and justices who strictly adhere to the original intent of our Constitution.

To counter the aggressive push by liberal groups to nominate and confirm moderate justices, Grassfire.org is moving to rally a minimum 250,000 citizens as quickly as possible for an EMERGENCY PETITION DELIVERY to The White House!

EMERGENCY ACTION ITEM: Grassfire is calling on all members of our online team to take immediate action in helping us rally and mobilize 250,000 citizen signers of our "Judicial Vacancy" petition. With the announced retirement of Sandra Day O'Connor, it is crucial that the grassroots voice is heard in the nomination process.

Grassfire will be delivering petitions to the White House during the first week of July.

If you are concerned about the future of our nation and want to stop Judicial Tyranny in America, go here, and alert your friends.

The Petition States:

To: President Bush, U.S. Senate

Whereas, the federal courts of the United States have imposed a tyranny of the judiciary on the American people by straying from the original meaning and intent of our U.S. Constitution, and

Whereas, judges and justices have extended the jurisdiction of the courts in ways that betray the meaning and intent of the Constitution, and

Whereas, some members of the U.S. Senate have obstructed the judicial nomination process and imposed an ideological blockade on President Bush's nominees…

Therefore, I the undersigned do hereby call on the President of the United

States to nominate and the U.S. Senate to speedily confirm nominees for the lower federal courts and the U.S. Supreme Court who:

1. Uphold the original meaning and intent of the Constitution and reject the so-called "living Constitution" model that allows judges to apply their own meaning to our founding document;

2. Uphold the intended jurisdiction of the courts as outlined by the Constitution and are committed to reversing the imperial court and the doctrine of judicial supremacy on all societal matters.

3. Are men and women of upstanding moral character who adhere to the historic values of our nation.

I oppose efforts to filibuster or block all nominees who meet these criteria and call for "Up-Or-Down" votes on all of President Bush's nominees. In addition, in the event the following individuals are nominated:

I would support the nomination of Antonin Scalia as Chief Justice.

I would support the nomination of Clarence Thomas as Chief Justice.


10 comments:

i eat puppies said...

This is exactly what our country doesn't need right now. Let's hope Bush can be the uniter he claims instead of the divider he practices.

James Howard Shott said...

You're right iep, the country doesn't need more divisiveness. But I suggest that the Democrats will create a divide over any originalist nominated by Mr. Bush.

In order for Mr. Bush to be a "uniter," he will have to acceed to the wishes of the likes of Ted Kennedy by nominating someone they approve of. I'd say the chances of that happening are slim to none.

Sen. Kennedy and the others hope to be able to impose themselves improperly in the function of judicial appointments. It is the President's sole responsibility. He may, if he chooses, seek counsel from the Senate, Democrats or Republicans, but he is under no obligation to do so. Some Presidents have done so, and others have not.

I make this point to prepare a contrast for the circus I believe the Democrats are about to begin: When President Clinton appointed Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a liberal, there was little opposition to her from Republicans when she was confirmed by a 97-3 vote.

Mr. Middle America said...

The People for the American Way's (http://www.pfaw.org) letter to President Bush:

When it comes to an institution as important as the Supreme Court, a nomination shouldn't be made in partisan way, but by seeking consensus across party lines for mainstream judges who will protect the rights of ordinary Americans. I urge you to work with senators of both political parties to find a judge who will stand up for the law and our rights, not an extreme ideology.

The Constitution says your nominees are subject to the "advice and consent" of the Senate. In order to best serve the nation, please honor the checks and balances that make our country great, and choose consultation and consensus over confrontation in your Supreme Court nomination.

James Howard Shott said...

Speaking of partisan impulses, I wonder if the PFAW wrote a similar letter to Senate Democrats, who are certainly partisan in their opposition to the expected nominee.

Further, Mr. Bush is likely to nominate an originalist, one who interprets the Constitution, as opposed to one who circumvents the legislative function by enacting policies through judicial fiat, which is what the Democrats/liberals want.

It is not the proper role or function of the USSC to strike down laws because they do not meet our standards of desirable social policy, ‘wisdom,’ or ‘common sense,’ which is how I interpret the message from the PFAW. Protecting the law and our rights is a role served by originalists, but is not what the PFAW has in mind, IMHO.

i eat puppies said...

"Mr. Bush is likely to nominate an originalist, one who interprets the Constitution, as opposed to one who circumvents the legislative function by enacting policies through judicial fiat"

From a NY Times OP-ed (Hey, you use the Wash Times, which is as conservative as the NYT is liberal).

"We found that justices vary widely in their inclination to strike down Congressional laws. Justice Clarence Thomas, appointed by President George H. W. Bush, was the most inclined, voting to invalidate 65.63 percent of those laws; Justice Stephen Breyer, appointed by President Bill Clinton, was the least, voting to invalidate 28.13 percent. The tally for all the justices appears below.


Thomas 65.63 %
Kennedy 64.06 %
Scalia 56.25 %
Rehnquist 46.88 %
O'Connor 46.77 %
Souter 42.19 %
Stevens 39.34 %
Ginsburg 39.06 %
Breyer 28.13 %"

One conclusion our data suggests is that those justices often considered more "liberal" - Justices Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Souter and John Paul Stevens - vote least frequently to overturn Congressional statutes, while those often labeled "conservative" vote more frequently to do so. At least by this measure (others are possible, of course), the latter group is the most activist."




And yes, Ginsberg was passed easily- b/c Clinton consulted closely with Hatch before her nomination. Nopefully, our current POTUS will take a page...

James Howard Shott said...

Overturning legislative acts/laws, is appropriate if they violate the protections of the Constitution. Overturning unconstitutional legislative acts is the province of an originalist (one who depends upon and supports the Constitution). An originalist is the sort of justice Mr. Bush will hopefully nominate, precisely because they use the Constitution as a basis for judicial rulings, whereas activists use personal feelings, international law, and other such whims to decide cases.

What I'm talking about is when justices make rulings in cases that have the force of law, but which are not based upon the Constitution. This is referred to as "making law from the bench." The Supreme court is not a lawmaking body, yet so much of what they do, like the recent expansion of the takings clause, has the force of law, and goes well beyond the intent of the framers of the Constitution.

The reason the liberal/activist justices are less likely to overturn legislative acts is that those acts tend to be the same sort of actions they so frequently force on the American people improperly through judicial action.

The NY Times piece addresses a totally different point than the point I made.

Mr. Middle America said...

You do realize I posted that only because of the fact that I am pissed that I have not had my steak yet!

Hell, it took me 20 minutes of google searching to find the appropriate BS to post!

hehehehe

James Howard Shott said...

So, Brad, you're saying that I've been had, eh?

Okay. Okay.

Come to Virginia, with a few days notice, and I'll fix you a steak, and we'll solve the world's problems over a few beers (or whatever).

Mr. Middle America said...

Cool! Instead of Beer, though, I will bring some good old Mexican Marijuana!

I will buy it from this influx of illegals pouring in!

James Howard Shott said...

You won't have to worry about your supply drying up. No tightening of the border yet in sight.