The American Spectator

Reader Mail

Jumping Jurists!

9.15.05 @ 12:01AM

LIBERAL LEMURS
Re: George Neumayr's Democratic Buffoons:

Hear, hear! One of your best! Sadly much of the Senate would need reading lessons to understand your eloquent wit.
-- D. Epstein

Bravo.

I particularly enjoyed Chuck Schumer's shock -- shock -- that anybody would dream of criticizing judges. And then in his next question accusing Roberts of wanting to dismantle civil rights. And some of us are old enough to remember Ted Kennedy's "In Robert Bork's America...."
-- Greg Richards

America has to take a step back from the issue of John Roberts before the Senate hearing in questioning Mr. Roberts on various types of law. It is painfully obvious that the United States Congress cannot handle a natural disaster let alone questioning a Supreme Court nominee. May I invoke a new political catch phrase that was spawned in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, "We were overwhelmed?" This catchphrase definitely applies to the Senators questioning Mr. Roberts, They definitely appear "overwhelmed" by his answers to their moronic questioning.
-- Melvin L. Leppla
Jacksonville, North Carolina

All the liberal politicos involved in the Senate's confirmation hearings yesterday pontificated on the importance of honoring precedent with respect to Supreme Court decisions. What a crock! What precedent in case law was cited to bolster the Supreme Court's blatant attempt at social engineering in Roe v. Wade? None, they had to rely upon penumbras instead. In 1962, in Engel v. Vitale, the Supremes threw prayer out of public schools based on what precedent? They cited none because there were none to cite. When the goal of jurists is to change things to be the way they want them to be, they do not allow tiny obstacles like the lack of precedent to stand in their way.

All this prattle about precedent is nothing more than a facade used by progressives to continue to cram their hideous agenda down the throats of the rest of us. They only care about it when it is benefits them to do so. That is why they championed it yesterday. They know it is the only prop holding their political house of cards together.
-- Rick Arand

Mr. Neumayr is spot on with his observations of Senatorial Constitutional ignorance. One wire service childishly cropped a picture of Judge Roberts with a deer-in-the-headlights effect. But as cheap as the unflattering shot was, there can be no doubt that Judge Roberts has a front row seat to this bewildering display of rank stupidity and egoism. Somewhere in Judge Roberts's mind must be the admission that the drafters of the Constitution made a disastrous error in omitting term limits. So, to segue this thought into Mr. Magilnick's "Penumbra" article, may I propose another landmark case, that being Clinton v. U.S. Since "42" has a hankering for the White House again, he can claim that the 22nd Amendment of the Constitution, (two-term presidential limit) is in direct violation of the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause, to wit, one elected branch of government having an unfair advantage over the other. Maybe Chief Justice Roberts will author the majority opinion.
-- A. DiPentima

Have you ever talked to a committed liberal about the many escapades of Senator Kennedy? The response is predictable. First they will attempt to defend him against offenses such as cheating on exams, cheating on one's wife, public drunkenness, etc. When the defense falls apart, as it inevitably does due to the fact that the Senator's behavior is indefensible, they will wax eloquent about his compassion for his fellow man. Next comes the Ms. Kopechne debacle. The defense for that is usually the old "what a tragedy it could happen to anyone he just panicked that was a long time ago," to which I usually reply that Ms. Kopechne is still dead. Finally, the conversation settles on the incoherently bumbling rambles that characterize the Senator's speeches on virtually any subject. By this time, the Kennedy defender is mumbling about the Senator's "martyred brothers". This gambit usually ends with the Kennedy defender launching an ad hominem attack on President Bush.

I suppose the attack on Senator Kennedy is an ad hominem attack, but it isn't one by accident. It is fair to attack the man when his public history is that of an alcoholic scoundrel. Besides, who could attack his ideas? I can't recall that he has ever had one.
-- Joseph Baum
Newton Falls, Ohio

Why don't the critics just be as honest as they expect the nominee to be and admit they want liberal judges because they want liberal opinions?
-- GP
Arizona

"Who would parents want their daughters to go work for? Ted Kennedy or John Roberts?"

Maybe we should ask this question of Mary Jo's parents.
-- Elaine Kyle
Cut & Shoot, Texas

OUTSOURCING LAWS
Re: Andrew Cline's John Roberts Behind the Plate:

"Some adhere strictly to the wording of the document as the Framers understood it; some allow for definitions and phrases to change meaning over time; and others simply ignore the language and declare that it means what they want it to mean."

Letter to the Editor

topics:
Taxes, Transportation, Education, Joe Biden, Mainstream Media, Economics, Business, Satire, Environment, Books, Constitution, Law, Supreme Court, Iraq, NATO