ConservativeLaw

Navy Shows It Teeth

2007-03-27T20:39:00.000-06:00

As reported, the U.S. Navy, as we speak, is conducting exercises in the Persian Gulf along the coast of Iran. This comes after 15 British Sailors were taken by Iran and are being held as "spies" by the Iranian Government. The exercises are being described as a signal to Iran to show the might of the U.S. Navy. Iran would be wise not to mistake the might of our Navy, and should take the warning very seriously. No force on Earth is greater than the U.S. Navy, and with the seizure of the British Naval team, a showdown seems eminent with Iran.

This comes as the American people are learning that Iran has a Navy, which was unknown to many until now. Iran is a threat to our sailors out on the high seas. If something were to happen out in the Persian Gulf, then this Administration must be obligated to respond in force, with the power that we have. An attack by Iran would be an act of war, and war must be the answer. Iran must be dealt with swiftly and promptly. This administration has been to cautious with the Iranian Government and it is hurting our credibility in the region. America must stand up to this regime and proclaim that if you seize our allies sailors and if you provoke an attack on our ships, you will be dealt with harshly.

politics war current affairs navy

Guns In The District and Democrats Like Chickens With There Heads Cut Off

2007-03-22T14:42:00.000-06:00

On March 9, 2007 the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia handed down the most historic decision concerning gun control and the 2nd Amendment in this country. The District of Columbia has one of the most strict gun control laws in the entire country. The courts have never challenged the constitutionality of a gun law and the D.C. Circuit finally acted. They deemed the gun ban unconstitutional and delivered a victory for all believers of the constitution. They state that"essentially, the appellants claim a right to possess what they describe as 'functional firearms' by which they mean ones that could be 'readily accessible to be used effectively when necessary' for self defense." A historic day for the nation and the minds of constitutional scholars. This now opens the door for the United States Supreme Court to finally grow enough guts to take up this issue and hand down a landmark decision for all free men.

In the mean time the Democrats are running around the House of Representatives like chickens with their heads cut off. Just today, they pulled a bill from the floor that would have given voting status and recognition to a District of Columbia representative, for which they are only a delegate right now. This was an absurd idea from the beginning simply because D.C. is NOT A STATE. Only states having voting rights in congress. Maybe they should read the Constitution a little more carefully. But, the Republicans threatened to tack on an Amendment to the bill that would repeal the gun ban in D.C. (the congress is the body that runs D.C. for you non constitutional scholars) This sent the Democrats going wild with congressman yelling at staffers on the floor, conservative Democrats supporting the repeal of the gun ban, and apparently Nancy was not there. SHOCKING. Because you would think the Speaker of the House would want to be there for a historic debate and possible vote.

Can you believe, all in one day the wheels of government can shake and wobble. We live to fight another day my fellow Conservative brethren, and thank the good old D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals for a grand display of competence and reason.

politics current affairs supreme court guns

Im Back and Ready to Cause Havoc

2007-03-21T23:19:00.000-06:00

Ahhhh, my unfaithful and boring readers. It has been almost a year since I have last posted an entry and I must apologize to the thousands of nobody's that even gave a damn that I was gone. Sad to hear, but alot has happened in a year and I drank Mountain Dew this afternoon and can not fall asleep. So here it goes.

For some stupid reason, the 2008 Presidential election has started pretty darn early and every state is moving their primary elections up thinking that they will have a say in the process of choosing a candidate. Let me assure you, the first few states will decide the nominees, and sorry to say California, you will be irrelevant such as your governor is. TOTAL SELLOUT in the words of the wise Rush Limbaugh. Even the grand state of Colorado is toying with the possibility of moving their primary up. I'm sure the candidates will be flocking in droves to come to the centennial state. The state of "Rocky Mountain High" as its new state song. Might I say, that I cried when I heard the news and busted out in a melody of "He was born in the summer of his 27th year" and "almost heaven, West Virginia." Which brings us to a good question, what was John Denver smoking when he thought West Virginia was almost heaven. He must have been high around the campfire in the good ol' rocky mountains.

The Democrats have finally keep their word. They will now be investigating every single thing the Bush Administration has done. From when the President woke up on January 21, 2001 until the moment he goes to bed on (what is today?) ah March 21, 2007. Glory Glory Alleluia, Nancy Pelosi is now in charge. Raise high the mighty flag of absolute hypocrisy. Bring out all the plastic surgeons and Hollywood chicken heads of the Democratic party. What a glorious day to see the "Stingy" Harry in charge in the Senate. The country is now in good hands of one from the great state of Las Vegas. Wait, isn't Vegas a city in Nevada. Ah the state which stores all of our nuclear waste. What a great state!

Oh my god. 8 U.S. Attorney's were fired. Holy crap, sound the trumpet, wake up the Calvary, the British are coming, the world will now be ending from it's "fever" (Mr. Vice President Al Gore), some sorry a@# attorney's were fired cause they do not know how to do their job. WHO REALLY GIVES A CRAP. They say its politics. Nah, it can't be politics, this is the great city of the District of Columbia, we do things nice in this town. And guess what, I'm the POPE.

Ah my friends a year has been long and I seem to have run out of juice to cover all the greatness that has occurred since we last spoke. Well Godspeed my faithful, and may the grace of the great Democratic party fill your pants with crap until the grown ups are back in charge.

U.S. Tipping Mexico to Minuteman patrols

2006-05-09T13:05:00.000-06:00

It has been a while since I lasted posted, but something really has struck a nerve in my body. There are reports that the U.S. Border Patrol is giving off the location of the minuteman patrols to the Mexican government. I can not believe it and I am appalled that our government is acting in such a manner. The government is committing treason against itself. A spokesman for the border patrol confirmed this report saying that it wants to reassure the Mexican government that it cares about migrants rights. We are being invaded along the Mexican border and our government will do nothing about it. If immigrants want to come into this country then come in through the legal process. It is not that hard to understand. I propose that we pass a law that eases the process of getting into this country by setting up an "Ellis Island" sort of operation on the Mexican border. By making it easier to get into this country legally, than you would be able to curb the illegal immigration that we are experiencing now.

The citizens of this country need to write their congressman and senators demanding that this stop and new leadership be put in charge of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection. We need to defend this nation and protect our citizens by actually doing something along our borders and not pander to the likes of Vicente Fox and the Mexican government.

Politics Current Affairs immigration border

Georgia v. Randolph Decided

2006-03-25T09:14:00.000-07:00

The Supreme Court decided the other day that despite the consent of one occupant of a residence and not the consent of the other occupant the police had no right to enter and gather evidence. The court has never decide a 4th Amendment case quite like this situation. The wife gave consent to the police to search the house and even showed them were the drugs of her husband were located. The husband objected to the search for reasons that are quite explanatory. The court decided that in this particular case the evidence gathered was to be suppressed because of a unconstitutional search by the police. The majority only said in certain circumstances could this situation work.

In his first written dissent as Chief Justice, John Roberts wrote an outstanding opinion and showed his true conservative roots. He talked about how this type of ruling could hamper police efforts to deter domestic violence. This is very true if you look at the situation in this case. Suppose that the husband objected to the search because he was beating his wife. The wife wants the police to come in the house and see the drug use and the signs of the domestic violence. The police need a investigation tactic to deter this type of violence and the consent of at least on occupant is the necessary tool to do so. Justices Scalia and Thomas joined the Chief Justice and also wrote their own separate dissenting opinions. Justice Alito took no part in the case since it was argued before he was able to join the court.

law supreme court Politics Georgia v. Randolph

Russ Feingold is an Idiot

2006-03-14T13:15:00.000-07:00

Russ Feingold the senator from Wisconsin is launching a crusade to censure President Bush over his Terrorist surveillance program. A censure is a slap on the hand from the congress that is just underneath impeachment. Feingold believes that the President broke the law when he authorized the warrentless wiretaps of terrorist suspects. This is a key tool in the war on terror and it seems that Feingold is gearing up for his 2008 Presidential bid.

I really want to know if the Senator from Wisconsin really believes that we should not be monitoring phone calls of our enemies that are being sent into this country. This was the problem with September 11th. We were not connecting the dots and listening to what the terrorist were saying to each other. It seems that this program has possibly broke up numerous plots that the terrorists were planning. I wonder if he thinks that is a good thing.

The President has every right under the Constitution to take these actions. He is the commander in chief, he has the power to conduct defensive war, the authorization of the use of force, and the vesting clause of article 2. He also derives his power from the oath of office, which states that he will "protect, and defend the Constitution." Protecting and defending it is preserving it. The stability of the union is the ultimate responsibility that he has. Read the Constitution again Senator Feingold.

law Politics senate Congress Current Affairs

The Solomon Amendment

2006-03-10T13:11:00.000-07:00

The Supreme Court on Monday declared that the government reserves the right to withhold federal money to colleges that prohibit military recruiters on their campuses. A group of law schools challenged the government Solomon Amendment that expressed this idea. The reason for their challenge rested soley on their opposition to the militaries policy on homosexuals. Chief Justice Roberts issued his first controversial opinion that happened to be unanimous, except for Justice Alito who did not participate in the arguments since he was not on the court yet. This is a much needed victory for the military that is constantly being spat on by liberal universities. It is the governments money and they reserve the right to withhold it from universities that restrict the access of military recruiters. Law schools are a prime target for recruiting that gives the law student the opportunity to serve his country and get his student loans paid off. The law schools challenged on free speech grounds since they did not agree with the policy. Law schools do not have to accept the money from the federal government if they choose not to, but if they do they better let recruiters on campus.

law supreme court Politics military

A Great Congressman

2006-02-17T14:33:00.000-07:00

I felt that I needed to mention a little bit about Colorado politics for just a brief second. Yesterday the 5th Congressional Districts Representative in the House of Representatives said that he was retiring. Congressman Joel Hefley was a devote public servant that stayed true to conservative principals that are lacking in the Republican Party. He was fiscally responsible, defended our military at any cost, and stood up to Tom Delay which costed him some power in the House. He is bowing out after 10 terms and 20 years in congress. He has left a legacy for this district and will never be forgotten for all he has done for the people of Colorado Springs and the other areas in his district. Most of all, his support for our military men and women is his biggest achievement. He has keep Fort Carson from closing and has no overseen the largest troop increase that the base has ever experienced. The next question is how will run for his seat? Here is a list that I have compiled:
1. John Anderson
2. Lionel Rivera
3. Jeff Crank
4. Doug Lamborn
5. Ted Haggered (I hope not)
6. Ed Jones
7. Wayne Williams
8. Jim Bensberg

Right now I am leaning towards Jeff Crank, but if Ed Jones jumps in the race I will back him 100% (I think it is unlikely he will run). God Bless Congressman Hefley and his family (maybe a Senate race in the future for him?)

congress Colorado politics Joel Hefley

Justice Alito!

2006-02-01T14:06:00.000-07:00

Finally. The Senate has acted and the judicial oath has been given. Samuel Alito is now Justice Samuel Alito. To my surprise the Senate voted in a narrow margin to confirm Justice Alito to the Supreme Court. By a vote of 58-42 my prediction of 60 some odd votes turned out to be wrong. Washington D.C. is worse than I really thought. When Justice Ginsburg, whom is as liberal as Justice Alito is Conservative, got 96 votes, the Senate would vote on the qualifications of a nominee rather than calling him a racist and bigot. The Democrats have lost this battle and will continue to lose and make their party look like political hacks if they continue to obstruct. With the last minute filibuster by the wacko liberals from "Tax"echussets they proved themselves to be the party of obstruction rather than a party with ideas. They lost the filibuster fight because members of their party have realized that all they do is obstruct rather than debate the issues.. Despite the harsh words from Senators, Justice Alito will prove to the people that he his a steward of the law. That he actually protects the Constitution from being shredded to pieces. He takes the words by what they mean and not by what they should mean. That is original intent. What does the document say not what it should say, because I am a liberal and can not win at the ballot box, so I rely on the courts to push my liberal agenda. The court is turning back toward a conservative movement that protects the Constitution rather than destroys it. The right to an abortion is not in the document and Roe will be chipped away. We will promote true equality by ridding of affirmative action and not asking the question of race on a college application. The times are changing and we can now restore the respect that the Constitution deserves. Welcome Justice Alito and Chief Justice Roberts.

law supreme court samuel alito john roberts Politics Abortion

Likely O'Connors Last Opinion

2006-01-18T20:39:00.001-07:00

Today the court released its first abortion opinion in 5 years. The New Hampshire law that prohibits doctors from performing abortions on minors without the consent of the parent. The law did provide for a health exception, however the lower court ruled the entire law to be unconstitutional. Justice O'Connor issued the opinion for a unanimous court which will probably be her last. She explained that the court did not see enough to rule the law unconstitutional in its entire form. The case was sent back to the court for further review of the law. It is interesting to note how Justice O'Connor started the opinion. She said the we (the court) "do not revisit our abortion precedents today." To the court this case was a technical matter and felt it best to allow the lower court to rethink its ruling.

This ruling does pave the way for more restrictions on abortion and with Judge Samuel Alito about to join the court, we will probably see a new direction that the court takes when it comes to abortion. Usually, despite today's unanimous ruling, the court is split 5-4 on abortion and Justice O'Connor provides that fifth vote. Alito will be able to change the course that the Supreme Court has taken. However, the court will probably not overturn Roe v. Wade right away, but rather allow more restrictions on the practice. Today's case speaks wonders of what is to come in the form of restricting abortion. Hopefully, we will see a change in the courts abortion precedents and place the restrictions on this barbaric act that is not a constitutional right under privacy.

law supreme court samuel alito Politics

Supreme Court Upholds Oregon Right to Die Law

2006-01-17T17:56:00.000-07:00

Today the Supreme Court handed down the opinion in Oregon v. Gonzales. This case involved the Oregon law that allowed for doctor assisted suicide. I touched on this subject in a previous post. The ruling by the court was 6-3 with Justice Kennedy writing the opinion for the court. The backbone of the opinion had to deal with whether or not Attorney General Ashcroft had the authority to punish doctors who assisted in this practice when it came to the federal controlled substance act. Kennedy explained this situation as follows:
"The authority claimed by the Attorney General is both beyond his expertise and incongruous with the statutory purposes and design" of federal drug control law, the Court said. Congress, it added, was unwilling "to cede medical judgments to an Executive official who lacks medical expertise."
The three dissenters were Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Scalia, and Justice Thomas. The dissent focused on the incorrect interpretation of the majority. They felt that the majority did not know who to interpret the statute and that this case did not involve a constitutional question. Scalia states that "this case calls for the straightforward application of our rule that an agency's interpretation of its own regulations is "controlling unless plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation." He felt that this was a technical matter that should be settled by reading the statute as it is written.

I would have to agree with the dissent on this one. Even though I agree with the argument of states rights, the Attorney General had every right to execute this statute as he seemed fitting. The Constitution provides that the Executive is responsible to take care that the laws be faithfully executed and as a member of the executive branch the Attorney General is in his bounds to enforce the controlled substance law. Congress can go back and amend the statute to apply its own needs in this situation. The control substance act was passed back in the 70's. It is probably time to update it. Also, if a terminally ill patient wants to be put to death, they should take Rush Limbaugh's advice. Go kill yourself on your own time. The government should not be involved in assisting death.

law supreme court Politics john roberts Current Affairs

How Many Votes?

2006-01-12T17:02:00.000-07:00

With the questioning of Judge Samuel Alito over I feel now that I am able to predict a vote count from the Senate when it comes to confirmation. During Chief Justice Roberts confirmation I was able to predict that he would get 20 some odd number of no votes. I was right in that prediction. He received 22 no votes from the whole Senate. Concerning Samuel Alito in his committee vote it will probably be on party lines. 10-8 in favor of the Judge. Concerning his full Senate vote I am predicting that he will receive a no vote in the 30's. It is hard to predict a exact number, but, if I am within 5 votes of that I will declare myself victorious. It is a shame that he will receive this number of no votes. He has showed exemplary knowledge of the rule of law and how to interpret the Constitution. The extreme liberal Justice Ginsburg received 96 yes votes from a Republican controlled Senate. They based her nomination on the qualifications that she possessed. Times have changed though. Democrats are bitter from their constant defeats at the ballot box and rely on the courts to implement their agenda. Whatever the case may be, Judge Samuel Alito will prove to be one of the brilliant Justices of the Supreme Court, next to Justice Scalia, Chief Justice Rehnquist, Justice White, Justice Cardozza, and Chief Justice Taft just to name a few. Get ready for the Judicial conservative movement to take off and bring us back to the roots of the founding fathers where they should be.

Law supreme court samuel alito Politics

3rd Circuit Judges Slap Dems In Face

2006-01-12T16:42:00.000-07:00

Today's hearings were not as exciting as the past two days, but not until the Judges of the 3rd Circuit came before the Senate Judiciary Committee. The whole week the Democratic members of the committee have been trashing Judge Samuel Alito and his character by calling him a racist, bigot, women hater, etc. The Democrats have no remorse for a dignified individual whom has more experience in public service than everyone on the committee. They lose their sole in the face of D.C. politics and will do anything to achieve a stroke of power. Their means of trashing an appellate judge's character came to a streaking hault today when colleagues of Alito's testified on his behalf. The panel of 7 judges were divided on what political party appointed them and what their political background commanded of them. These are individuals who have worked with Judge Alito and have been friends with him during his service to the 3rd Circuit. They unanimously approved of the Judge and urged the Senate to confirm him to the U.S. Supreme Court. They rebutted the attacks from the Democrats and gave them a slap across their faces. It was pretty much "how dare you challenge the integrity of this man." They affirmed Samuel Alito to be a fair and honorable man that they respect and care about deeply. Most of the Democratic members did not have the guts to challenge these Judges, partly because they know that they would be fools to do so. Today proved the intellect of Judge Samuel Alito and he will be confirmed by the United States Senate and will make an outstanding addition to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Law supreme court samuel alito Politics

Roberts Court First Death Penalty Case

2006-01-11T16:45:00.000-07:00

Just as a quick note while the confirmation hearings for Judge Samuel Alito are going on, the Supreme Court issued its first death penalty case under the Roberts court. The court overruled a 9th Circuit decision and reinstated a death sentence for a convicted first degree murderer. The jury based it decisions on four "special circumstances" which two of them were invalidated by the state supreme court. But the sentence was still upheld. Eventually the 9th Circuit overturned the lower rulings. The Supreme Court today ruled that the death sentence can still stand even if the jury based its decision on a factor that was later proved to be invalid. This was the first 5-4 decision of the Roberts court and the Chief Justice joined the majority that was written by Justice Scalia. Chief Justice Roberts is turning out to be a great asset to the court and upholding the traditions started by William Rehnquist. By joining this opinion he is showing that he will stick to the philosophy of originalism and adhering to the meaning of the Constitution that our founders would have envisioned. More to come on the Alito hearings...

Law supreme court samuel alito john roberts Politics

Alito's Shining Moment

2006-01-10T18:18:00.000-07:00

The past two days have proved that Judge Samuel Alito is a stellar intellect and capable of being a sound mind on the Supreme Court. Today was an exciting moment in history as Judge Alito stood up to the Democrats and made them look like the fools for whom they are. They tried so hard to hammer out of Alito his views on abortion, his opposition to the doctrine of "one man one vote," his failure to recuse himself from a Vanguard case, and his alleged membership to the controversial Concerned Alumni of Princeton. Alito stood strong and held his ground and his legal reasoning shined brightly over the Judiciary Committee. He was able to answer more questions than Chief Justice Roberts did in his confirmation hearings. This is probably due to his involvement in numbers of cases in his 15 years on the 3rd Circuit. He had Democratic Senators searching for answers to Alito's. He was able to show them his capability and it proved to out maneuver the Democrats.

The Democrats could only question this nominee on ludicrous charges that he belong to a group that was alleged to be in opposition to women and minorities from attending Princeton University. Alito explained that if he was involved in this club it was for the sole purpose of saving the ROTC from being expelled from the University. He cornered the Democrats on the Vanguard issue by defending his taking part in the 2002 case that was before him and the 3rd Circuit. It was proved that when he was before the committee in 1990 he said he would recuse himself in his initial time on the court. This case came up when he had been on the court for 13 years. Far beyond the initial part of his term on the court. He also gave the answer that I was looking for on abortion and that is nothing. He explained that their is a right to privacy in certain provisions of the constitution, but not an explicit right to privacy mentioned in the text of the document. He said that he would take a fair approach to the abortion issue if it was brought before the court and would count stare decisis into the judicial decision making process. All in all, today was Samuel Alito's day and the Democrats got water boarded. More to come tomorrow...

Law Supreme court samuel alito politics Current Affairs abortion

Confirmation Showdown

2006-01-08T15:26:00.000-07:00

Tomorrow starts the confirmation hearings for Judge Samuel Alito. It seems that the Democrats have lost their footing in their character assassination. The start witness is no longer testifying and Alito has momentum going into the confirmation process. It should be one of the most exciting hearings that the Senate has had in a long time (that includes Anita Hill). Alito will probably be faced with questions about his extensive paper trail and his opinions on some of those issues. If he is as smart as I hype him up to be, he will be able to either avoid the questions or make the Senators look like chumps. It will be extremely hard for the Democrats to take down a man who has been a judge for 15 years and has held numerous positions as a government lawyer. This is going to be a shining moment for the conservative legal movement and a shift in the direction that the Supreme Court will take for the next 30 plus years. Tune in tomorrow for a show of intellectual orgasm's. It is going to be extreme.

Law supreme court samuel alito Politics Current Affairs

Breaking News: Dujack Not Testifying

2006-01-06T18:13:00.000-07:00

Foxnews.com is now reporting that Stephen R. Dujack, the Democrats "star" witness will no longer testify about Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito and his alleged connections to "Concerned Alumni of Princeton," a group he deems to be racist, sexist, and out of the mainstream. He is not commenting at this time. More possibly to come...

"Last Stand"

2006-01-06T16:41:00.000-07:00

It is being reported on the Drudge Report that the Democrats are making one final push to derail the Samuel Alito nomination to the Supreme Court. They have released there list of witnesses and have added, what they call, their "star" witness. Stephen Dujack will testify that Judge Alito belonged to a group "Concerned Alumni of Princeton" that he claims is a racist, sexist, and out of the mainstream. (But, it turns out, as the Drudge Report is reporting, that Dujack is a little out of the mainstream himself. He has compared the slaughtering of animals to the holocaust.) He is quoted as saying about the connections to the group that "Judge Alito will have to explain to the Senate Judiciary Committee why he paid dues to an outfit... that was overtly racist and sexist for its entire 14-year existence — at times passionately so, too." But, the Drudge Report has a Republican strategist saying, “Democrats plan on making this hearing all about personal smears. If their star witness to do this compares eating a Big Mac to what the Nazis did during the Holocaust, they better rethink their strategy.” The latter is the best analysis

This is a desperate attempt by liberals and the Democratic party to push their will, which is out of the mainstream, upon the American public. The same 60 million of us that voted for President Bush under the assumption that he would appoint judges to the federal bench that would restrain themselves and adhere to the ideology of originalism. This is a shameless act by the minority to derail one of the most qualified individuals to be appointed to the Supreme Court. Ted Kennedy, Dick "Turbin," and Chuck Shumer should bow down to the Judge for he has gained more than any of them could achieve together. It is a sad day when it comes down to character assassination to prevent good men from serving in Government. How about the liberals deal with it and actually get elected, so they can nominate whom they want. But wait, they can't get elected. That is why they rely on the federal judiciary to get their way. It is time to practice judicial restraint and actually defend the meaning of the Constitution.

Law Supreme Court samuel alito Politics Current Affairs

2006/ The Courts

2006-01-01T21:34:00.000-07:00

As we ring in the new year, we look forward to the challenges ahead. What will be the shape that the courts take or the direction they choose to steer? Everybody with an opinion will tell you what they think, and I am another one of them. I have been fairly good in predicting what will happen when it comes to Supreme Court nominations, how the Senate will vote, and maybe how some cases will come out. I will try to analyze the direction the court will take in 2006.

With the start of a new era in the Supreme Court, the Roberts court will turn out to be a conservative's dream come true. The court has been and will shift more to the right of the political spectrum and the legal spectrum. Once Judge Samuel Alito joins the court we will be able to predict how certain cases will turn out and what court precedents will be overturned and replaced with new ones. It might be a little extreme to say that the all important Roe v. Wade will be overturned in 2006, but more restrictions will be approved by the court. Business will have an ally for the first time since Lewis Powell was on the court. The philosophy of judicial restraint will become more widely embraced by legal scholars and the federalist society will be attributed with that. The rise of conservatism is coming and the power of the Roberts court will greatly impact this revolution. It might turn out to be the revolution that Reagan would have wanted and it is desperately needed in this time of liberalism in its down fall.

2006 brings good fortunes and great promise. Freedom will flourish across the middle east and patriotism will become the back bone to any sensible Americans life. I personally look forward to the start of an era. I have a feeling that I will think of the Roberts court as the greatest court to rule the high bench. He is going to turn out to be one of the greatest chief justice's this country has ever seen. Happy New Year and may God Bless us All.

Law Supreme court john roberts Politics Samuel Alito

"Machine Gun Sammy?"

2005-12-29T17:04:00.000-07:00

A lot of fuss has been made about two cases in which Judge Alito dissented. The first that coined him the name "machine gun Sammy" will most likely be a hot topic when the conformation hearings start on January 9. The case was United States v. Rybar. This case involved a challenge to a federal law that would regulate the intrastate possession of a machine gun. This case was tied to the ruling in United States v. Lopez that made it a federal offense to possess a gun within a school zone. The Supreme Court ruled that statute to be unconstitutional. Alito felt that congress had no right to regulate the possession of a machine gun set within the precedent of United States v. Lopez. Most of the liberals on the judiciary committee will focus some attention to this opinion and will hammer him as being sympathetic to machine gun crazy nut jobs. This attack will be chipped at by Judge Alito under the presumption that he was basing the case off of Supreme Court precedent. It clearly states that he was holding to the precedent set by the higher court and that a federal law was not needed when the states have taken it upon themselves to regulate the possession of a machine gun or any other firearm. This is exactly what the court decided in Lopez. Most states already had regulations for gun free school zones. Alito should be able to fend off the Kennedy's, the Durbins, and the Fiengolds when it comes to this issue.

The next case that the liberal elites will attack Judge Alito on is his dissent in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Again, Alito was applying what he considered to be the courts precedent set in Hodgson v. Minnesota. He interpreted Justice O'Connors opinion to fit the two-parent notification requirement into the Spousal notification required by the Pennsylvania law. Alito should be able to fend off this criticism again with an explanation that he is bound by court precedent. The liberals really want him to say he is against abortion and will rule to overturn their precious Roe v. Wade. Alito, just like Roberts, is smarter than that. He will invoke the "Ginsburg Rule" and not answer questions that could come before the court in the future. By holding to the notion of stare decisis, he will be able to sail through his conformation. The liberals will be stampeded on by a genius of the law and will make them look foolish. Ted Kennedy will have to settle on driving his car back into a river before he out does Samuel Alito.

Law supreme court SCOTUS Samuel Alito politics Current Affairs

Judge Alito: Soon to be Justice Alito

2005-12-28T20:38:00.000-07:00

It has been a while since I last posted on the nomination of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court. The more time that the Senate has been able to delay this great man, I have come to realize that he will turn out to be on of the greatest justices this country has ever had. The opposition to Alito from the heartless Democrats is outright political. Every time a new document is released that shows his political beliefs the liberals jump at him. They think "how dare someone disagree with us. We are the party of diversity" but they only consider diversity when you agree with them. If you do not agree with the liberal ideology or the democratic party (same thing) you are an idiot. How is that diversity? For Judge Alito to have a conservative philosophy of the law is reasonable and he should not be afraid to admit it. What will happen during the hearings will be a show that perceives him to be a fair individual and it should be. Being fair is hearing the arguments of both sides and adjusting them to your interpretation of the law.

This new court will bring a lot of changes to the court that are needed to prevent the social policies put in place by the Warren Court. I will predict that within the next 5 years Roe v. Wade will be overturned. Also, within the next 5 years affirmative action will be ruled unconstitutional, Gay marriage will be challenged and left up to the states to decide. The Presidents war powers will be challenged and strengthened by the court. 2006 will bring new possibilities for the legal system and more and more legal minds will accept the ways of the federalist society and a conservative legal movement.

Law Supreme Court Politics Samuel Alito Current Affairs

Domestic surveillance--Protects the Constitution

2005-12-20T15:10:00.000-07:00

Does domestic surveillance approved by the President violate the Constitution? Does this constitute an impeachable offense? The answer to both of these questions is no. The New York Times "illegally" reported about a secret NSA program approved by President Bush to listen in on phone calls by U.S. citizens to foreign nationals. Leaking classified material that has national security implications and publishing it is detremental to the security of this country and illegal. Some have suggested that this violates the Constitution and tramples civil liberties. These comments are unfounded and poposterous. The program was approved to monitor phone calls between known al-queda operatives. This is completely within the bounds of the Presidents power to wage war and protect the country. Congress authorized the President to take action as he deems necessary to wage a war against terrorism, the patriot act plays into this legality, and his oath of office is the ultimate justification for this program. Before I get to that, let me explain the hypocrisy of the Democratic party.

The Democrats are being extremely critical of this program, but are they not just complete hypocrites? They were the ones being critical of the governments ability to connect the dots after 9/11, but now that we are connecting the dots through the patriot act and this NSA program, they are against it. They would rather jeopardize the security of this nation, than let President Bush gain political advantage. They only strive for power and do not give a care in the world about the security of the Constitution. The Presidential oath is the ultimate testament to protecting the nation from collapse.

The oath of office states that the President will "preserve, protect, and defend the constitution of the United States." Lincoln used this justification when he suspended habeas corpus during the civil war. President Bush is using this for justification when it comes to domestic surveillance. He is given the ultimate power of defending this nation from enemies foreign and domestic. Anyone who doubts this power is sleeping in a hole in the ground. This program is closely monitored and safeguarded to protect civil liberties. Let the President wage war and protect the union from inner destruction. Lets put partisan politics aside and protect the nation from future attacks.

Law Politics patriot act Civil Liberties War on Terror Current Affairs

Kerry Calls Troops Terrorists

2005-12-06T17:16:00.002-07:00

While appearing on"Face the Nation" John Kerry expressed his true feelings about our military men and women. Kerry responded to a question with this explanation:

"There is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, uh-uh-uh, you know, women, breaking sort of the customs of the -- of -- of -- of -- historical customs, religious customs, whether you like it or not. Iraqis should be doing that."

This just shows the true face of the Democratic Party and their opposition to freedom. No matter what anybody would say about this, it is not patriotic to call our soldiers terrorists. This is not a courageous act or even an American act. This is liberalism at its finest. Rush Limbaugh summed up this situation by saying "What these people are doing is not gutsy. It doesn't take courage or guts to do what they're doing at all. It's the easiest thing in the world. Liberalism is the easiest, most guttless choice anybody can make. Courage is speaking for freedom while faced with tyranny, not speaking for tyranny while living in freedom." John Kerry's statement is a heartless, unpatriotic action taken by a leading Democrat. He is not alone in his opinion. Just look to the likes of Dick Durbin, Ted Kennedy, Ramsey Clark (traitor), John Murtha, and Nancy Pelosi. They all feel the same way, and since the media is in their backyard, nothing is said about their un-American statements. It is a shame when are soldiers are putting their lives on the line to fight for freedom that cowards in this country will shame them by calling them terrorists. Shame on you Mr. Kerry; tell that to the families of the soldiers that gave their lives for this country and the spread of freedom among God's people. The only sensible Democrat in Washington is Senator Joe Lieberman, but he has been put in the dog house by his party. Joe Lieberman is a patriot and all of our military men and women, who are the real freedom fighters.

politics Iraq War Terrorism Current Affairs

Filibuster?

2005-11-23T16:14:00.000-07:00

Just the other day, Senator Joseph Biden (D-DE) suggested that a filibuster of Judge Samuel Alito is not out of the question. He based this comment on the 1985 document, which I explained about in my previous post. This compliant is founded on the notion that Judge Samuel Alito is opposed to the doctrine established in Baker v. Carr of "one man, one vote." To the ordinary
American, being opposed to this doctrine is outrageous. But, since I am smarter than the average citizen, I will explain why we do not have "one man, one vote." Baker v. Carr had to do with redistricting, and using it to an equal standard. This means you can not redistrict according to race. This implies the doctrine of "one man, one vote." This case was followed by Reynolds v. Simms and a few others. This is a liberal "G spot." But I am sorry, "one man, one vote" does not exist.

If you adhere to an originalist interpretation of the constitution, you would understand this. The only representatives that we elect directly are Congressman. Until constitutional amendment, we never elected Senators. But Senators are disapportioned any way. Each state gets 2 Senators. So Wyoming, the least populated state, gets the same number of Senators as the most populated state, California. In theory, Senators represent trees and land. That's not really according to population and the "one man, one vote" doctrine. Also, we do not even directly elect the president. We elect delegates to the electoral college.

So when you hear Senator Biden talking about filibuster, I say bring it on. This would allow the American people hear the debate about abortion, and constitutional interpretation. If the Democrats do filibuster the "constitutional option" will be invoked. The Republicans will have the Democrats by the balls and the constitution will prevail.

Law Politics Supreme Court Samuel Alito Filibuster SCOTUS

Abortion Showdown: Coming Soon

2005-11-18T14:36:00.000-07:00

Ever since the release of the 1985 document concerning Judge Samuel Alito's view on abortion the pro-choice camp has been up in arms. Judge Alito expressed in his application to be deputy assistant to the Attorney General that abortion is not a constitutional right. The liberals have gone insane about this revelation. Guess what, he is right. This document will create a showdown in the Senate between pro-lifers and pro-choicers. I am going to predict that Alito will get 60 some odd votes from the full Senate. This will only happen if the abortion issue takes front stage in the confirmation process. Judge Alito has expressed that he respects the doctrine of stare decisis and precedent. This is true among any judge from the appellate level and the Supreme Court. This does not meant that previous decisions should not be overturned. Especially if the decision was wrong and unconstitutional. Guess what, Judge Altio is right about abortion. There is no constitutional right to abortion.

There are certain privacy protections in the constitution. They are mentioned in the 3rd, 4th, 5th, 9th, and 14th Amendments. These are specific and a little lose to interpretation. But, the privacy of the women's womb is not included in these protections. The choice to murder is not constitutionally protected. That is the bottom line. You must realize that liberal women's groups, such as the National Organization for Women (NOW), are hypocrites on this issue. They are for the women's right to chose the termination of the pregnancy, but they are for the double homicide law. The law that says if you kill a pregnant women, then you will be charged for the murder of her and the unborn child. These groups proclaim that when they are aborting a fetus it is not life, but when Scott Peterson goes and kills his pregnant wife he is killing the life of the unborn child. Liberals are hypocrites. Abortion is not protected by the constitution. Just read the document and interpret the text and you will realize that. Abortion is not private, it is a public statement saying I am irresponsible and can't handle my own actions. Judge Alito is right.

Law Abortion Supreme Samuel Pro-life Politics Pro-Choice

Georgia v. Randolph

2005-11-07T13:38:00.000-07:00

Tomorrow the Supreme Court will hear the arguments in Georgia v. Randolph. This is a case that asks the question, can one occupant give law enforcement valid consent to search the common areas of the premises shared with another, even though another occupant is present and objects to the search? This is a very complex issue that must be decided to clarify the issue. It involves a husband and wife who were involved in a domestic argument and phoned the police. When the police arrived the husband said no to a search of the house. Even the parents who owned the house said no, but the wife consented to the search. The police recovered a straw with a white substance on it and a business card with the same. The wife then withdrew her consent and the police took both the wife and husband into custody. They then received a warrant to search the rest of the house. The police recovered more drug parafanillia and put it into evidence. The question is now before the Supreme Court.

In my opinion, the police had every right to search the house with the consent of just one occupant. The Fourth Amendment does not express that everyone must give consent, but merely consent must be granted to search persons, papers, and effects. It would be wise for the court to side with the state of Georgia on this issue, mainly because the police had probable cause to believe that drugs were in the house from the statement of the wife. The wife lead them to the drugs under her own power. Consent was given to search the house and a warrant was obtained to search even further. This is a cut and dry issue and hopefully the court will be reasonable to side with lawful police tactics to prevent crime. Consent was granted and that is the key phrase in the case. Consent.

Law Supreme Fourth Search Politics

Right to Die?

2005-11-06T14:44:00.000-07:00

The Supreme Court will be deciding a very controversial case this term in Gonzales v. Oregon. This case asks the question of whether or not there is a constitutional right to die. In 2001, then Attorney General Ashcroft, declared that the Oregon Law violated the controlled substance act (CSA) of 1970. Ashcroft threatened to revoke any doctors licenses that prescribed lethal doses to patients that wanted to die. The district court and the 9th circuit ruled that Oregons law did not violate the CSA. The Supreme Court has heard the oral arguments in this case and their decision will be a close one. It seems that Chief Justice Roberts, and Justice Scalia are firmly behind the U.S. Government in this case. Justice Thomas will probably follow the ranks of Roberts and Scalia. It also seems like Justice Breyer is leaning the same way as the others mentioned. That gives them 4 votes and Kennedy and O'Connor (if she is still on the court) are the key factors. We will just have to wait and see what those two justices do. But, is there really a right to die?

I would have to fall on the side of the U.S. Government since I do not believe that there is a constitutional right to die. This has nothing to do with states rights; the government of one state is taking the lives of it's citizens. There is no way the founders of this country could have foreseen a right to die by lethal drugs. The congress was right in passing the CSA and it applies to this Oregon case. The constitution says that the federal government is the supreme law of the land. Unless it is prohibited from doing so. When there is no clear definition in the constitution then federal statute is the substitute. I am a strong believer in states rights, but this is a slippery slope type of case. There is something wrong with the government taking the life of its citizens. Life, is protected in the constitution.

Law Politics Supreme Right

President Picks Judge Alito

2005-10-31T13:48:00.000-07:00

It turns out that my streak of predictions has just grown. I predicted the outcome of Chief Justice Roberts Senate vote and now I have predicted the new nominee. Maybe the President reads my blog. Probably not, but that is besides the point. The President made a wise and bold decision today in naming Judge Samuel Alito as the next Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. It was wise because the man is a genius and one of the most qualified people to sit on the court. It was bold because the Democrats do not like the pick. The ensuing filibuster is on the way. The President has grown back his ball, which he lost when he nominated Miers, by choosing Judge Alito. He has re-energized his conservative base and chosen one of the most distinguished jurists in the country next to Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas. This is critical, because we now know that the balance of the court will shift in a good direction. The Democrats have been given the one two punch by the President. First with Miers and now Alito.
The one thing that will be talked about the most is his service on the 3rd Circuit and the opinions he has written. The Democrats will be shuffling through those papers like it is Christmas. But, I believe that nothing can hold back Judge Alito and he will trounce all over the Dems on the judiciary committee. I will say it again, Alito is the best choice that the President could have made and he has pulled himself out of a very deep hole that he dug himself in. Hopefully the Dems will filibuster Judge Alito and look like partisan, whining, little babies because the President nominated who he said he would during the campaign. Sit back and enjoy the ride, because things are going to be changing in this country and the great conservative legal movement will take rise and destroy everything that the liberals hold true to their heart. We will bring back dignity to the court and the rule of law will prevail. We will interpret the Constitution to what is was really meant to be. A document that can only be changed by the people, not the court.

Law Politics Supreme Court SCOTUS Samuel Alito

Justice Alito?

2005-10-28T19:02:00.000-06:00

I have changed my mind over night and decided that the President should nominate Samuel Alito from the 3rd Circuit as the next associate justice of the Supreme Court. I decided this morning that Alito is the best person for the job and would make the conservative base jump with joy. He is has been called "Scalito" because his judicial philosophy matches that of Justice Scalia. Many websites are reporting that they have sources within the White House that Alito will be chosen by the President. They have also suggested that Michael Luttig is in the running. It has been said the White House is concentrating on these two gentlemen. Both of them have high qualifications and would make great justices. If either of these men are chosen it will be a great day. I happen to believe that Alito is the better of the two. He is known for his dissent in the Planned Parenthood v. Casey case when it was before the 3rd circuit. This is a reassurance to conservatives who were trouble by the Miers nomination. But will he fair well before the judiciary committee?

There is no doubt that if Alito is anything like Scalia he will tear down the walls of the judiciary committee. The Senators will be no match for a man with his qualifications. He got his J.D. from Yale. He has served on the 3rd circuit court of appeals for 15 years. He has been a U.S. Attorney, deputy assistant Attorney General, assistant to the Solicitor General, and assistant U.S. Attorney. Those are impressive qualifications for one individual. His skill is no match for any Senator. Hopefully the reports are true of his possible nomination and we will have to wait and see if I wasted my time writing this blog to pump of Samuel Alito's name.

Law Politics supreme court Samuel Alito

She got "Miered"

2005-10-27T22:03:00.000-06:00

It seems that Harriet Miers reads my blog. Probably not, but I predicted a moment in history. Last night I gave my reasons for Miers to step aside for the sake of he reputation and the Republican Party. Today she withdrew her nomination to the Supreme Court. There is no doubt she is a smart women, but she was not intellectually capable to stand up to the judiciary committee. With no paper trial of opinion, barley any qualifications, Harriet got "Miered." But now we must look at who the President will choose as his next nominee. Many names have floated around, but I think there are only four left who would make perfect justices. Samuel Alito from the 3rd circuit, Edith Jones from the 5th circuit, Miguel Estrada who was rejected by democrats in the senate for his race, and Janice Rogers Brown who serves on the D.C. circuit. All of these candidates have outstanding qualifications and the talent to face the Senate. But the one candidate that stands out among all of them is Miguel Estrada.
The only reason he was filibustered in the first place is because he was Hispanic. The dems didn't want to look bad filibustering the first Hispanic to the Supreme Court so they went after him for his appeals court nomination. It is a sad day when you are rejected on the basis of race. The Democrats who consider themselves the party of diversity, but only if you agree with them. So if you are a conservative black, Hispanic, women, etc you are considered an idiot, because the dems are there for you and you will not adhere to their philosophy. Estrada is a highly qualified candidate and should be considered again by the White House as the next Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. Justice Estrada.

Law Politics Supreme Court harriet miers Miguel Estrada

Step Down Harriet

2005-10-26T14:28:00.000-06:00

Questions are buzzing around capitol hill about whether or not Harriet Miers has enough votes to be confirmed for the Supreme Court. Is she really up to the challenge of facing the judiciary committee? My answer is probably not. I will not doubt that Miers is a smart women, a brilliant lawyer, and somewhat qualify to sit on the court. But she is no John Roberts. Her intellectual capacity to face of with the blood thirsty Democratic Senators is not that of Roberts. Roberts was, quite frankly, the man. He was smarter than all of the Senators on the committee. Miers is in a corner that she can not back her self out of. Harriet Miers should withdrawal her nomination to the Supreme Court and step down. Let a more qualified, intellectually capable women take her place. Step aside for the sake of your reputation and the sake of the Republican Party, which is having trouble staying together with everything else going on. Harriet Miers is no John Roberts.

Law Politics Harriet Miers supreme court SCOTUS

A "Delayed" Reaction

2005-10-21T23:06:00.000-06:00

It was great to see Tom Delay's mug shot yesterday. With that big smile he is showing the Democrats that they can't take on his political might. The prosecution is losing steam in this case. It just proves my previous assertion that this is all a political hack. If you don't know how easy it is to get a grand jury indictment I will tell you. The old saying goes that you can indict a ham sandwich. That is how easy it is. It turns out that the first grand jury Ronnie Earle went to turned down his request for an indictment. Then the second grand jury he went to turned him down to. That is not really a good success rate. Finally the third grand jury gave him his indictment. We call this grand jury shopping and prosecutors are punished for doing this. That is why Delay's attorneys filed a prosecutorial misconduct claim. It just shows how far the Democrats will go to take down a successful Republican. It is all a political hack.
We then see today that the presiding judge has given tons of money to Democratic campaigns and MoveOn.org. Sounds a little fishy. That is why Delay's attorneys are requesting a new judge, who will be fair. The conspiracy charge will go nowhere and the money laundering will be dropped because of the misconduct by the prosecuter. As Delay put it, they are going after him for participating in the political process and because he was successful in defeating the Democrats. They are just pissed that they lost and they are doing what Democrats always do, bitch and whine because they lost.

Law Tom Delay Politics Congress Republicans Democrats

Justice Miers?

2005-10-13T14:52:00.000-06:00

It has been a few days since I last posted. I have been thinking a lot about the Miers nomination and I am still puzzled. I full heartily believe that the President could have chosen someone else for the job that was a lot more qualified than Harriet Miers. I know that becoming the head of the bar associations is not easy, but I am skeptical about the administration falling back on being the head of the lottery commission as a qualification. Also, it is no easy task to become White House Counsel and I think that is her best argument for being on the court. But, she has no record of having an opinion. All of the justices who never served on the bench before the Supreme Court had some record of opinion. Miers has nothing to look at and that is not a good thing. She is going to get hammered in the confirmation hearings from both sides on what her philosophy is. It will be hard to do what Roberts did and not answer certain questions, because he had a record. Harriet Miers does not have anything to look at.
I am not questioning her intelligence, because to become White House Counsel you have to be some what intelligent, but whether or not she can be a productive justice. Will she be a Scalia, a Thomas, a Roberts, or a Rehnquist? Will she draft intelligent opinions with humor and wit behind them? No one will never know until she gets on the bench. I have heard one good thing, and that is she has praised the Federalist Society for what they do and what they stand for. It is reasurring to hear that, but should we trust the President on this one. Does he really know Harriet Miers? I guess we will have to wait.

Law Politics Supreme Court SCOTUS harriet miers

Bush's Missed opportunity

2005-10-06T22:12:00.000-06:00

What is the difference between liberals and conservatives? Conservatives actually have balls and guts and it seems President Bush has lost one of his. By nominating Harriet Miers he gave in to the political pressures of his falling poll numbers. There are a lot more qualified women that could have been nominated to serve on the highest court in the land. My choice would have been Edith Jones. She has served on the Fifth Circuit and has a distinguished record as a conservative jurist. Another could have been Edith Clement, who also serves on the Fifth Circuit. I could go on and on, but I am tired so I will not do that. The point is we do not know how Miers is going to turn out. The last time we had a stealth candidate we got David Souter. We all know how that turned out. If Bush would have nominated a known conservative legal mind he would not be getting all of this heat from his own supporters. It is not to say that she has never sat on the bench. Rehnquist was never a judge before he took his seat on the court. Neither was Byron White and over 40 other justices in the history of the court. I agree with others when they say that Miers should step aside and let a known, more qualified women, be in her place.

law Supreme Court Harriet miers SCOTUS Politics

The Roberts Court

2005-10-03T21:10:00.000-06:00

Today started a new era of conservatism on the Supreme Court. Chief Justice John Roberts took the helm today on the bench and began an era that will last for 30 years or so. He joined the ranks of two other great justices, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. Together the three of them will shape the court in a conservative manner and with the retirement of Justice O'Connor, who was a swing vote, conservatives will be able to control the liberal assault on the judicial branch. I am making the bold prediction that Roe v. Wade will be overturned with this new court. Some might say that it will not happen, but I am confident that it will and it should be done. The Chief Justice will turn out to be one of the greatest justices that the Supreme Court has ever seen. I do have to agree with my fellow blogger at Conservaglobeusa that it would be fitting to add the gold stripes to his robe. It would be fitting to the late Chief Justice and will start a tradition. But all in all, we are starting to see change in the court that will be a good thing. The rule of law is going to prevail and the constitution will be protected from liberal executers. Conservatism will triumph and stomp the Warren court era to the ash pile of history.

Law Politics Supreme Court john Roberts Judiciary SCOTUS

Strict Constructionist?

2005-10-03T21:00:00.000-06:00

This is going to be a short post, but I figured I have to commit on the Harriet Miers nomination. I am not sure whether or not she will be faithful to the constitution or if she will be a Scalia or Thomas. I do however have confidence in the President and think that he knows something that we don't. It was good to hear her say today something in regards of "the wisdom of the founders." She also stated that she will apply the law in a strict manner and not legislate from the bench. Hopefully she is telling the truth and will apply the rule of law in her decisions. My prediction was wrong when I said Edith Jones would get the nomination. But, I had a feeling the President was going to shock us all. And he did just that with a stealth candidate. I will be looking very hard at this nomination and will be committing on it when I feel I understand Miers better.

Law Supreme Court Politics

"Hail" to the Chief

2005-09-29T21:00:00.000-06:00

I have to say that I was proud to see this extremely bright individual sworn in as Chief Justice today. It almost brought a tear to my eye to see the liberals try to stand up to the intellect of Chief Justice Roberts and fall flat on the floor. I do have to declare victory today, because I was two votes shy of predicting the final vote tally in the senate. I have said in previous posts that Chief Justice Roberts would get 80 yes votes and 20 no votes. Instead he got 78 yes votes and 22 no votes. I would like anybody else try and predict the outcome that close. Besides all of the hoopla behind today's ceremonies, we must look to the future. Many people ask how will Roberts lead the court. I believe that we are now seeing the move to a conservative type of court that William Rehnquist started and wanted.

Americans have elected conservative Presidents more than liberals over the past 20 years and they are holding true to their promise of selecting originalists to the federal bench. We do not want to see liberals taking over the court system and making the law for us. That is what the legislature is for, not the judiciary. Roe v. Wade will be overturned in the next 10 years and it will be a good thing. Americans will decide that a women's right to kill her baby does not constitute a broad right to privacy which extends to the womb. Affirmative action will be ruled unconstitutional because it promotes inequality. We will be promoting true equality for everyone, no matter your race or gender. States rights will triumph and federalism will dominate. We will finally go back to interpreting the constitution the way the founders sought the document to mean.

So you must be asking yourself who I think will be Justice O'Connors replacement. I think the President should nominate Miguel Estrada so the Democrats will filibuster him again and show that they are stopping the first Mexican to sit on the court. Because, that is the only reason they filibustered him in the first place. But, I still think it will be Edith Jones from the New Orleans Circuit, because she is a women and she is a conservative who will interpret the constitution to the original meaning. That is only a prediction and I have a feeling I will be wrong. But we will have to wait and see what the future will bring to the court and the rule of law.

Supreme court john roberts Politics SCOTUS law

Liberal Assault on Delay

2005-09-28T12:44:00.000-06:00

I was disappointed today to see that Congressman Tom Delay was indicted for conspiracy in campaign fraud. It is absolutely beyond the scope of American justice that somebody could be the target of such a partisan hack. They are charging him with conspiracy in what I call freedom to play the game of politics. I guess Delay took a contribution from some corporation, put it into the wrong account, in an effort to win back the state legislature. Now please tell me what the hell is wrong with that. They are going to indict him with a Grand Jury because he put the money in the wrong account? Tell me that this is not a political hack by a partisan district attorney, who has been known to do this kind of nonsense just to get on the news.

Lets compare this to Clinton and how he was receiving oral sex in the oval office on Easter. He lied under oath. Tom Delay was expressing his right to be involved in the political process. Just because liberals think that corporations are evil capitalistic hungry beasts, does not mean they are not allowed to participate too. Oh!! but lets take down Tom Delay because he is an evil capitalist too, but we will leave Clinton alone for lying under oath to a government official. I ask again, is this not a political hack? Are liberals not out to get a conservative's blood? The answer is yes, and the rule of law should prevail in this case. Delay is innocent from any wrong doing, because he has the right to participate in the political process just like any liberal.

politics law Current Affairs Tom Delay Congress

Scalia The Genius

2005-09-23T16:06:00.000-06:00

I believe I have spent so much time commenting on John Roberts I figured I would turn my attention to the ultimate legal genius of our time. Antonin Scalia is by far the smartest justice that this country has seen in a long time. Democrats and liberals hate him and conservatives love him. He has gained the respect of the legal community and of the country. His wit and character bring civility to the Supreme Court, who's power has gone far beyond what Scalia would want. No matter if you disagree with his view of the law, his opinions are by far some of the most entertaining anyone has ever read. In the most recent case of Roper v. Simmons, which was the juvenile death penalty case, he unleashed a lashing dissent. By calling the decision a mockery of the constitution he showed the majority that they are changing the constitution as they seem fitting. Scalia has been an advocate of states rights and a strict interpreter of the constitution. Scalia has a handle on the rule of law unlike the other justices that sit on the court with him. He has stayed true to the constitution and what the founders of this country were striving to achieve when they wrote it.

Scalia is the founder of the Federalist Society that plays a major role in advancing the cause of conservative law. Many have accused John Roberts of being a member of this society, but I do not see what is wrong with that. This is how Scalia has been able to advance the philosophy of "strict constructionist" in the legal world. It rests on the principles that our founders would have wanted from us. Scalia will, in my opinion, go down as one of the greatest justices to sit on the high court. Mainly for his efforts to promote an originalist form of interpretation. Hopefully more like him will be able to serve at such high quality.

Antonin Scalia Law Politics Supreme Court

The Great White Whale of the Senate

2005-09-23T14:27:00.000-06:00

It looks like there are only three Democrats on the Judiciary Committee who are sensible enough to do what is right. The three Democrats who voted for John Roberts in the committee decided that Roberts is extremely qualified to serve on this nations highest court. But what about the five who voted no? They are the typical liberal blood hounds of the Senate. The "Great White Whale" of the Senate lead the charge to diminish this outstanding human being. I have to be honest, and that is Ted Kennedy needs to find a real job, which he has never had. He has gone insane in his older years as a U.S. Senator. He thinks he knows the law and he is not even a lawyer. It is absolutely mind blowing that he sits on the Judiciary Committee with his lack of knowledge for the rule of law. He has the nerve to question on of the most gifted lawyers that this country has seen about the rule of law. Maybe we should see what the law says about murder Ted.

Law Politics Supreme Court john Roberts

Eminent Domain Reform

2005-09-20T17:55:00.000-06:00

The congress has decided that they should listen to the people and take up the issue of eminent domain reform. After the recent decision by the Supreme Court in Kelo v. New London cries have been heard throughout the country. People have a right to their property and protection from government intrusion. This is not a partisan issue, and both sides have expressed their frustrations with the ruling. The constitution is clear what eminent domain consists of. "Nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation." The basis behind the courts decision was it made economical sense to build a Pfizer plant that could boost the local economy. Is that for the public good? Absolutely not.
The sad thing behind the history of this case, is that it was a low income community, and was a minority area of town. This now opens up the flood gates for future government intrusion. To seize private property for economical reasons is a clear violation of the public use clause of the Fifth Amendment. The courts are now writing legislation on a regular basis. The congress is acting and we should all be thankful that someone is standing up for property owners. Justice Stevens does not care about your property and hopefully Justice Souter's house will be taken just to prove a valid point.

Law Law Eminent Domain Kelo Property Rights

Who Will Confirm Him?

2005-09-20T15:55:00.000-06:00

The question that we must now ask ourselves, is are there any real smart liberals in the U.S. Senate? The answer to that could be yes, if they vote to confirm Judge John Roberts to be Chief Justice. Harry Reid has come out today saying that he will oppose Roberts' nomination. That is to bad for Harry, because he use to be a smart guy. Harry was "fairly" moderate before he took over as minority leader. It seems that the liberal interest groups have taken over what he might really believe in. That is too bad when a man gives in to pressure and changes his beliefs when people tell him too. Not everyone can be like "W" I guess.
Some Democrats are realizing what I have been saying all along. Roberts is a genius and he will be a great Chief Justice. They are now coming out expressing their support, because they can not vote against a man with such extraordinary qualifications. I still predict that Roberts will get 80 some odd votes from the full Senate. But that is a shame in the bigger sense.

Law politics John Roberts Senate

John Roberts is the Best

2005-09-14T17:11:00.000-06:00

It turns out that Senator Joseph Biden agrees with me. Judge John Roberts is the best nominee that could sit on the Supreme Court. It has been reported that Senator Biden told John Roberts on the floor of the hearing room that he is the best nominee that has appeared before the committee. I wonder if that means Biden will vote to confirm him as the next Chief Justice of the United States of America. I will put money down that Biden votes no to confirm him. Mainly because Senator Biden is running for President and he must appeal to the likes of his liberal activists. It probably is a shame that this will happen because Roberts is the most qualified person to sit on the court and he is a legal genius. Ginsburg got 96 votes in the senate and she is the most extreme member on the court. And that is more extreme than some on the court.
I also heard Senator Lyndsey Graham say yesterday that he thinks no Democrat on the committee will vote in favor of Judge Roberts. That just tells you how much politics has made its way into the law. The rule of law is the most precious aspect that this country has and it is being destroyed by partisan babies on the democratic side of the Senate. I predict that Judge Roberts will get about 80 some odd votes from the whole Senate. The 20 no's will be coming from Democrats who either are flaming liberals or are running for President. It is a shame what our country's nomination process has come to. It is being destroyed by the Democrats and their liberal buddies in special interest. Only time will tell whether or not we can overcome this peril.

supreme court
Law

"I Call Balls and Strikes"

2005-09-13T20:02:00.000-06:00

Today was the first day in Judge John Roberts confirmation hearings and he blew them all out of the water as I said he would. The man is a legal genius and he has proved that today. Standing up to the likes of Ted Kennedy and proving him wrong bring tears of joy to my eyes. Judge Roberts has proved that he will interpret the constitution as it was written. How he explained the right to privacy is an eloquent way to avoid the Roe v. Wade decision. No one on the Supreme Court denies that there is a right to privacy and it can come out of certain areas of the constitution. It comes from the 4th, 1st, 3rd, and 14th amendments. Privacy comes from liberty. I am almost certain that Judge Roberts and any other conservative on the court does not believe that the right to privacy extends to the women's womb and her right to terminate the unborn. His answers on this question came down to precendent and that the decision should stand, but it can be altered and confined to certain extents. I do not believe that, in the near future, Roe v. Wade will be overturned. William Rehnquist himself had the chance to overturn the Miranda decision but chose not to.
Turning to Kennedy's questioning it seems that Kennedy was focused a lot on women's rights. I wonder if he nows that he has abused women himself and allowed one to be raped. But we can cross that bridge when we get there. Judge Roberts put Kennedy over his lap and gave him spanking. He and the Democrats were trying so hard to paint Roberts as a racists, bigot, and a denier of civil rights. Roberts stood up for himself and showed why he his extremely qualified to sit on the highest court. Roberts even referred to himself as a strict constructionist when it comes to interpreting the constitution. He believes that he is there to find what the original intent of the text is suppose to be. He used the analogy of an umpire, that he does not make the rules, he only calls balls and strikes. He applies what the rules are, as would a strict constructionist with the constitution.
A select few of conservative bloggers believe that we are being side swiped again with Roberts mainly on his answer to the privacy question. They are being mislead by their knowledge of the constitution. Every justice on the court believes that the right exists as an implied right, but that it does not extend to certain areas that it has to. Specifically abortion and the Roe v. Wade case. The problem with law is that we do follow precedent. It has been embedded in every justice that stare decises governs the court and rule of law. It would be devastating to the rule of law if judges could overturn what ever case they see fitting. This is fitting in the child labor cases. Child labor has been overturned, then went back, then overturned, then went back. This does not help the integrity of the courts and the judicial process. If we could do this with all controversial cases then the court would look like retards. But, it can be altered to fit under the rule of law as it was in Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

Law

Flight 93 (Let's Roll)

2005-09-11T21:04:00.000-06:00

Flight 93 is over looked in history and that is a shame. The men and women aboard that plane stood up and said that we have a purpose in life and our destiny is before us. They charged the front of the plane and fought for the lives of thousands that could have died. They won the first battle in a war on terrorism and defeated the enemy. They walked into the valley of the shadow of death and stood evil in the face. These are children of god and now they rest above us in the endless heavens.

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil, is for good men to do nothing"

Edmund Burke

As the media focuses all of their attention on the hurricane, we must honor those lives that were intentionally taken on September 11, 2001. As a country I fear that we are paying less and less attention to that horrific day four years ago. There are a few pieces in the news about the anniversary, but not enough is being done to honor sacrifice. The terrorist threat is still out there and we need to stay on the hunt for these ruthless murderers. In the aftermath of chaos and devastation we stood up and said, "We will never forget." As country men we flew our flags with pride and determination. We sang God Bless America when ever we had the chance and cried when the national anthem was played. Today I cried for the memories of the innocent people who's lives were cut short by cowards who come from a hole in the ground part of this planet. The children that lost their father, the wives and husbands that lost their soul mate, and the parents who lost their son or daughter. Their memories must live on no matter how long ago this evil act took place. God bless all of the lives lost on September 11, 2001

News and politics

The Fourth Circuit is Correct

2005-09-10T21:40:00.000-06:00

It turns out that judges in our nations appellate system have some brains after all. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals held that Jose Padilla can be held indefinitely. Padilla is suspected of plotting to use a "dirty bomb" in numerous situations. He was presenting a clear and present danger to our country and the term "enemy combantant," is in the eyes of the court, a legitimate way to hold enemies to this nations security. I was glad to hear that the Supreme Court denied hearing this case on appeal. The law has been interpreted and the decision stands. Sorry liberal legal analysts, this nation will not tolerate treason.

Law

SCOTUS

2005-09-09T14:10:00.000-06:00

On Monday John Roberts goes before the Senate Judiciary Committee for his conformation hearings. I can't wait to see the look on Ted Kennedy's face when Roberts blows the committee out of the water(or as Kennedy knows it as a bridge over water with a car driving off of it) with his sharp intellect. John Roberts is one of the most highly qualified persons to sit on the high court. He will be able to sit on the court as long as the late William Rehnquist did. Conservatives should be proud that this brilliant man will be able to direct the court in such a manner that will be good for this country and bring about the legal principles that this country was founded on.
One day this non-sense of a "living-breathing constitution" will be put to rest. With Roberts joining the court and the President able to appoint another justice, we will see a turn from liberal legal philosophy's to a strict constructionist interpretation of the constitution. This will only be better for our country and for the respect of the constitution.

Law

The Chief

2005-09-05T23:39:00.000-06:00

I would like to welcome you to my newly created blog on American politics and Law. The purpose of this blog is to give you a conservative tilt on today's pressing issues and American Law. I am a strict constructionist when it comes to interpreting the constitution and a flat out conservative on policy issues surrounding our country today.
Today the president re-nominated Justice John Roberts to succeed William Rehnquist as chief justice of the Supreme Court. I personally would have liked to see Justice Scalia given the post of chief, but I respect the President's decision. I believe that John Roberts is a fine jurist and will make an outstanding chief justice. Liberals in this country are going to have to deal with the fact that the President is a conservative and will nominate conservative justices to shape the future of our countries judicial policy for the next generation.
With that the President now has to appoint another nominee to succeed Justice O'Connor. I hate to hear liberals in the media preach that her replacement should be a women or a minority. The President has a constitutional right to pick whom he wants to serve on the bench. But, if it should be a women the I predict that the President will nominate Justice Edith Clement from the New Orleans circuit of Appeals. She was the speculation when Roberts was picked and now it would be a fitting tribute to the Hurricane ravaged area to have one of their own picked for the high court. Most of all she is a women and she is a conservative.
We will have to wait and see what happens. But in the near future I will be giving a more detailed analysis on the Law, the court, and politics in general. Stay tuned and be ready to open up your minds to true conservatism.