| Roberts Destroys the Left in 44 Seconds |
|
October 3, 2005 |
|
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
|
 |
|
 RUSH: I want you to hear this answer again from John Roberts, this 44-second answer in which he just totally nails the left's entire view of the purpose of the Supreme Court. The question came from Senator Dick "Turban" of Illinois. He said, "I said at the outset that I thought one of the real measures as to whether or not you would be on the Supreme Court goes back to a point Senator Simon had made: 'Would you restrict freedom in America or would you expand it?' When you are defending gays and lesbians who are being restricted in their rights for the Colorado amendment you were trying, from my point of view, to expand freedom in America. That to me is a positive thing. That's my personal philosophy and point of view. But then when you say, 'If the state would have walked in the door first to restrict freedoms, I would have taken them as a client, too,' I wonder, where are you? Beyond loyalty to the process of law, how do you view this law when it comes to expanding our personal freedoms? Is it important enough for you to say, 'In some instances I will not lose any skills as a lawyer because I don't believe that that is a cause that's consistent with my values and beliefs?' That's what I've been asking, sir."
ROBERTS: I had someone ask me in this process, I don't remember who it was, but somebody asked me, you know, "Are you going to be on the side of the little guy," and you obviously want to give an immediate answer, but as you reflect on it, if the Constitution says that the little guy should win, the little guy is going to win in court before me. But if the Constitution says that the big guy should win, well, then the big guy is going to win because my obligation is to the Constitution. That's the oath. The oath that a judge takes is not that "I'll look out for particular interests; I'll be on the side of particular interests." The oath is to uphold the Constitution and laws of the United States, and that's what I would do.
RUSH: Slam-dunk! In 44 seconds, John Roberts dismantled the left's entire belief in the structure and purpose of the US Supreme Court. In 44 seconds -- and I play this again to tell you, that's why all these quota concerns on the Supreme Court are irrelevant to me. There is no quota when this comes to justice. There's no quota that says, "Big guys don't get a fair chance at it just because they're big guys and they have other advantages," and there's no quota that says, "The little guys doesn't get as much justice as possible because he don't have the money or doesn't have access." By it same token there's nothing that says, "The little guy gets more justice than the big guy simply because he's a little guy," which is what the left wants. The left wants to punish achievement everywhere they can find it in this country, because the structure of this country they believe to be fundamentally flawed, i.e., capitalism. They think it's inherently unjust that it picks winners and losers, and so we always have to stand up for the losers because the winners already have all power -- and so they look at the court as a way to structure more power for the losers but it's actually more insidious and diabolical than that.
As I say, the real reason the left wants the courts is because they can't win legislatively. But if they can get a number of their judges on the court that will decide that the law is basically liberal and institutionalize that, and then make it irrelevant whether liberalism wins or loses at the ballot box because it will not matter, then that's a problem. That takes me back to why people on the right are so concerned with this. It's one of the reasons that for 20 and 30 years and longer conservatives have been sweating and slaving and working in the basements and behind the scenes to try to get people to the polls in an informed basis to actually win elections so as to, according to our Constitution, reshape the US Supreme Court, ergo we now come to a nominee about whom we don't know anything, and so there's a (groan). "Oh...." Twenty, 30 years is a long time to work for something, and to get there and to finally get where you've always wanted to be and then to have a pick for the Supreme Court that remains a question mark is sufficient reason to have the wind cut right out of your sails, which is where a lot of people are today.
END TRANSCRIPT |
|
|
Read the Article... |
|
Headline: Supreme Court term opening with new chief justice
Source: CNN
Byline: Bill Mears
Dateline: Sunday, October 2, 2005
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The U.S. Supreme Court begins a new term Monday with a new chief justice who is the youngest person on the bench, an associate justice one step from retirement and a docket front-loaded with hot-button social issues.
These are uncertain times for an institution steeped in tradition and precedent.
"This is a situation where, from the very moment the justices start back up in October, they're going to be very divided," said Edward Lazarus, a Supreme Court legal analyst and author of "Closed Chambers," a book on the justices. "It's going to be a lot of friction inside the building."
Adding to the tension will be the addition of the court's newest member, the 17th chief justice of the United States. John Roberts was sworn in Thursday, less than four hours after the Senate voted 78-22 to confirm him. He got to work quickly, putting in a full day at the court on Friday. (Related story)
The new chief has a lot of catching up to do, and fast: the court formally begins its work Monday, when oral arguments will be heard for the new term. (Related story)
Youngest justice
The 50-year-old Roberts will lead a bench on which seven of the current nine members are over 65. Only Clarence Thomas, at 57, approaches him in age.
When a new justice arrives there is "a certain amount of delicate politicking" among the justices, Lazarus said.
"Both sides are going to be feeling out Chief Justice Roberts to see what kinds of arguments appeal to him," he said. "What kind of person is he? Is he going to be someone who is going to be harder-edged, like a [Antonin] Scalia or a Thomas, or he is going to be the kind of very collegial person he's reputed to be?"
One thing that will help Roberts in the transition is that he clerked for then-Associate Justice William Rehnquist in 1980-81, and colleagues say the young lawyer learned valuable lessons in law and leadership from his mentor.
Rehnquist died September 3 after battling thyroid cancer for months. Two days later, Roberts was nominated to replace him.
Years ago, when preparing for cases, the two men would walk together on the court grounds or Capitol Hill and discuss the issues.
"It was apparent from the first day we were there that [Roberts] was an extraordinary intellect with a great work ethic, and he was going to do special things. And he has," said Dean Colson, who clerked for Rehnquist with Roberts.
Increasing caseload?
In confirmation hearings Roberts hinted at increasing the court's docket of cases, which had dropped by nearly half since Rehnquist took over in 1986.
The justices now hear about 80 appeals, and there have been complaints that the court ignores too many important issues.
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor announced her pending retirement last July. Roberts initially was picked for her seat, but Rehnquist's death changed the dynamic and prolonged the confirmation process.
O'Connor has said she will stay on until a replacement is named, making her role in the upcoming term unclear. Under court rules, a justice's vote does not count until a ruling is issued, a process than can take weeks or months. Officials have not said whether O'Connor will be on the bench Monday.
Many legal scholars question whether O'Connor would want to continue hearing cases if her replacement takes over before rulings are issued, thereby negating her vote.
The choice to replace O'Connor could be pivotal. She has been a key swing vote in the past and has, for example, voted to strike down abortion laws that failed to contain health exceptions. (Full story)
Most-watched case
Abortion tops the court's current docket. The most-watched case deals with a New Hampshire law requiring minors to get parental permission before undergoing the procedure unless a woman's life is in danger.
A federal appeals court ruled that exception was not broad enough, since it did not include a woman's health.
"This law does seem to be crafted to demand some kind of Supreme Court review," Lazarus said. "Because it really goes to this question of how much you have to protect the life versus the health of the mother. ... And it actually could be one of those cases that could turn on John Roberts' vote."
That case is to be heard in late November.
The court also will hear a longstanding dispute over legal protection for reproductive clinics against anti-abortion protesters. Next spring, the justices could confront another simmering issue: whether to continue to permit use of a late-term procedure critics call "partial-birth" abortion.
The justices in 2000 blocked states from enforcing a ban on such abortions, since those laws also did not provide for the health of the woman.
Assisted suicide case
On the second day, the court will hear arguments over whether an Oregon law allowing physician-assisted suicide is constitutional. The voter-approved referendum allows physicians to prescribe lethal doses of medicine to terminally ill patients who express a strong, clear desire to end their lives.
The Bush administration, normally a champion of states' rights, has said Oregon's law conflicts with the federal government's power over how drugs are prescribed and administered.
Doctors could be jailed or have their licenses revoked if the federal government prevails.
"The issue of physician-assisted suicide is tied into what President Bush calls 'the culture of life.' So this is a real emotional issue for them [conservatives]," Lazarus said. "And it's likely to be a very close ruling at the court, with Roberts again, perhaps, a key vote."
Other cases under consideration:
A church-state battle concerning religious services that use a hallucinogenic tea, containing a banned drug.
A free-speech dispute over whether universities opposed to the Pentagon's policy on homosexuals in uniform may ban military recruiters from campus.
When and whether new DNA evidence can be used to help grant death row inmates new legal hearings to prove their innocence.
Whether police can search homes for drugs when occupants disagree over consent.
Of equal importance will be cases that may be added to the docket in the next few months. In addition to the "partial-birth" case, the justices could consider:
Whether anti-racketeering laws can be used against tobacco companies accused of misleading Americans about the health dangers of smoking.
Whether public school children can continue being led in the Pledge of Allegiance.
Various terrorism-related cases dealing with whether Americans held by the military in the United States as "enemy combatants" deserve a chance to appeal in civilian courts; and the use of military tribunals to try suspected foreign terrorist suspects.
The Supreme Court term begins the first Monday in October and effectively ends in late June or early July.
|
|
|
 |
|
|
