The American Spectator

p> 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. br> — Melvin L. Leppla br> Jacksonville, North Carolina /p>

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.

p>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. br> — Rick Arand /p> p> 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.