Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Trivia: Youngest US Supreme Court Justice ever appointed

Expand Messages
  • Ram Lau
    Kos is cool with Roberts, at least he didn t go crazy like other liberals. I also think that we should settle with a non-radical conservative. Bush deserves
    Message 1 of 3 , Jul 24, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      Kos is cool with Roberts, at least he didn't go crazy like other
      liberals. I also think that we should settle with a non-radical
      conservative. Bush deserves some praise on this one for not putting up
      another Bork.

      Ram


      Roberts another Souter?
      by kos
      Fri Jul 22nd, 2005 at 11:41:17 PDT

      If Republicans want reasons to grill Roberts as much as Democrats,
      here's two.

      First, famed lawyer and Harward Law Professor Lawrence Tribe says this
      about Roberts:

      Laurence Tribe, a liberal professor of constitutional law at
      Harvard, remembers Roberts as a student there and has kept in touch
      with him over the years. He does not recall Roberts as a political
      conservative when he studied there.

      "He's conservative in manner and conservative in approach," Tribe
      said. "He's a person who is cautious and careful, that's true. But he
      is also someone quite deeply immersed in the law, and he loves it. He
      believes in it as a discipline and pursues it in principle and not by
      way of politics"

      And there's this:

      Everyone knows that, like all good Republican lawyers, John G.
      Roberts Jr. is a member of the Federalist Society, the conservative
      law and public policy organization where right-of-center types meet to
      denounce liberalism and angle for jobs in the Bush administration.

      And practically everyone -- CNN, the Los Angeles Times, Legal
      Times and, just yesterday, The Washington Post -- has reported
      Roberts's membership as a fact. One liberal group opposed to Roberts's
      nomination, the Alliance for Justice, has noted it on its Web site.

      But they are wrong. John Roberts is not, in fact, a member of the
      Federalist Society, and he says he never has been.

      So one of his former law professors says that Roberts is not an
      ideologue, and he himself vehemetly denies being a member of the
      Federalist Society -- a must-participate for every conservative law
      student and lawyers in the nation.

      Of course, we have evidence that he is a partisan, but the results are
      mixed. He could very well be the next Souter-type on the Supreme Court.

      As such, it seems that those Republicans calling for expedited
      hearings, those Republicans claiming Roberts doesn't have to answer
      every question -- they might want to rethink things a bit. Perhaps
      it's in everyone's interest to take a closer look at the nominee so
      the country has a better idea of who they're putting on the court for
      the next 30 years or so.


      --- In prezveepsenator@yahoogroups.com, Greg Cannon <gregcannon1@y...>
      wrote:
      > I was wondering why Newdow would put those quots on
      > his sites (since they don't really help his cause),
      > till I actually looked at the site and realized it's
      > not his site. They are interesting quotes to be sure.
      >
      > About Story's age, here's a link to a New York Times
      > article about the interviews Bush had with the various
      > judges he considered. One of them, J. Harvie Wilkinson
      > III, talked to the Times about the questions Bush
      > asked him. Bush asked Wilkinson how much exercise he
      > does, and when Wilkinson mentioned he doesn't do some
      > of the exercises his doctor recommends for him, Bush
      > "took umbrage at that." Wilkinson is 60, Roberts is
      > 50. Bush wanted someone young and healthy (though not
      > as young as Story of course).
      >
      > Wilkinson also said he "was not asked about his views
      > on issues like abortion or even a particular legal
      > case in his interview with Mr. Bush as well as in
      > interviews with others on the White House staff"
      >
      >
      http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/21/politics/21bush.html?ei=5090&en=e7f0978a9afaa63e&ex=1279598400&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=print
      >
      > --- Ram Lau <ramlau@y...> wrote:
      >
      > > http://michaelnewdow.com/JosephStory.htm
      > >
      > > Joseph Story (1779-1845), a U.S. Congressman,
      > > 1808-9, was appointed in
      > > 1811 as a Justice to the United States Supreme Court
      > > by President
      > > James Madison ("The Chief Architect of the
      > > Constitution"). Being the
      > > youngest person ever to serve in that position,
      > > Joseph Story continued
      > > on the bench for 34 years, until his death in 1845.
      > > He was
      > > instrumental in establishing federal supremacy,
      > > Martin v. Hunter's
      > > Lessee, 1816, and in establishing the illegality of
      > > the slave trade in
      > > the Amistad case.
      > >
      > > A professor at the Harvard Law School, 1821-45,
      > > Joseph Story wrote
      > > tremendously influential works, including:
      > > Bailments, 1832,
      > > Commentaries on the Constitution of the United
      > > States, 1833, Equity
      > > Jurisprudence, 1836, and A Familiar Exposition of
      > > the Constitution of
      > > the United States, 1840, in which he stated:
      > >
      > > "We are not to attribute this prohibition of a
      > > national religious
      > > establishment [in the First Amendment] to an
      > > indifference to religion
      > > in general, and especially to Christianity (which
      > > none could hold in
      > > more reverence that the framers of the
      > > Constitution)....
      > >
      > > "Probably, at the time of the adoption of the
      > > Constitution, and of the
      > > Amendment to it now under consideration, the
      > > general, if not the
      > > universal, sentiment in America was, that
      > > Christianity ought to
      > > receive encouragement from the State so far as was
      > > not incompatible
      > > with the private rights of conscience and the
      > > freedom of religious
      > > worship.
      > >
      > > "Any attempt to level all religions, and to make it
      > > a matter of state
      > > policy to hold all in utter indifference, would have
      > > created universal
      > > disapprobation, if not universal indignation." -
      > > 1833. Joseph Story,
      > > Commentaries on the Constitution, 1833 (reprinted
      > > NY: Da Capo Press,
      > > 1970), Vol. III, p. 726, Sec. 1868, and p. 727, Sec.
      > > 1869. See also
      > > Joseph Story, A Familiar Exposition of the
      > > Constitution of the United
      > > States (MA: Marsh, Capen Lyon, and Web, 1840;
      > > reprinted Washington,
      > > D.C.; Regnery Gateway, 1986), p. 314, Sec. 441, p.
      > > 316, Sec. 444.
      > > David Barton, The Myth of Separation (Aledo, TX:
      > > WallBuilder Press,
      > > 1991), p. 32, 79-80. "Our Christian Heritage,"
      > > Letter from Plymouth
      > > Rock (Marlborough, NH: The Plymouth Rock
      > > Foundation), p. 5.
      > >
      > > In Commentaries on the Constitution of the United
      > > States, 1833, Vol.
      > > III, Justice Joseph Story declared:
      > >
      > > "It yet remains a problem to be solved in human
      > > affairs, whether any
      > > free government can be permanent, where the public
      > > worship of God, and
      > > the support of religion, constitute no part of the
      > > policy or duty of
      > > the state in any assignable shape. - 1833. Joseph
      > > Story,
      > > Commentaries on the Constitution, 1833 (reprinted
      > > NY: Da Capo Press,
      > > 1970), Vol. III, p. 726, Sec. 1868, and p. 727, Sec.
      > > 1869. See also
      > > Joseph Story, A Familiar Exposition of the
      > > Constitution of the United
      > > States (MA: Marsh, Capen Lyon, and Web, 1840;
      > > reprinted Washington,
      > > D.C.; Regnery Gateway, 1986), p. 314, Sec. 441, p.
      > > 316, Sec. 444.
      > > David Barton, The Myth of Separation (Aledo, TX:
      > > WallBuilder Press,
      > > 1991), p. 79-80. "Our Christian Heritage," Letter
      > > from Plymouth Rock
      > > (Marlborough, NH: The Plymouth Rock Foundation), p.
      > > 5.
      > >
      > > In 1844, case of Vidal v. Girard's Executors,
      > > Justice Joseph Story
      > > delivered the United States Supreme Court's
      > > unanimous opinion:
      > >
      > > "Christianity... is not to be maliciously and openly
      > > reviled and
      > > blasphemed against, to the annoyance of believers or
      > > the injury of the
      > > public....
      > >
      > > "Why may not laymen instruct in the general
      > > principles of Christianity
      > > as well as ecclesiastics.... And we cannot overlook
      > > the blessings,
      > > which such [lay]men by their conduct, as well as
      > > their instructions,
      > > may, nay must, impart to their youthful pupils.
      > >
      > > "Why may not the Bible, and especially the New
      > > Testament, without note
      > > or comment, be read and taught as a Divine
      > > Revelation in the [school]
      > > - its general precepts expounded, its evidences
      > > explained and its
      > > glorious principles of morality inculcated?
      > >
      > > "What is there to prevent a work, not sectarian,
      > > upon the general
      > > evidences of Christianity, from being read and
      > > taught in the college
      > > by lay teachers? It may well be asked, what is
      > > there in all this,
      > > which is positively enjoined, inconsistent with the
      > > spirit or truths
      > > of the religion of Christ? Are not these truths all
      > > taught by
      > > Christianity, although it teaches much more?
      > >
      > > "Where can the purest principles of morality be
      > > learned so clearly or
      > > so perfectly as from the New Testament?" - 1844.
      > > Vidal v. Girard's
      > > Executors, 43 U.S. 126, 132 (1844), pp. 198,
      > > 205-206. David Barton,
      > > The Myth of Separation (Aledo, TX: WallBuilder
      > > Press, 1991), pp.
      > > 62-63. William W. Story, Life and Letters of Judge
      > > Story, Vol. II,
      > > Chap. XII. Stephen Abbott Northrop, D.D., A Cloud
      > > of Witnesses
      > > (Portland, Oregon: American Heritage Ministries,
      > > 1987), p. 434.
      > >
      > > In his commentary of the First Amendment's original
      > > meaning, Justice
      > > Joseph Story clarified:
      > >
      > > "The real object of the First Amendment was not to
      > > countenance, much
      > > less to advance Mohammedanism, or Judaism, or
      > > infidelity, by
      > > prostrating Christianity, but to exclude all rivalry
      > > among Christian
      > > sects [denominations] and to prevent any national
      > > ecclesiastical
      > > patronage of the national government." - Judge
      > > Brevard Hand, in
      > > Jaffree v. Board of School Commissioners of Mobile
      > > County, 544 F.
      > > Supp. 1104 (S. D. Ala. 1983). Russell Kirk, ed.,
      > > The Assault on
      > > Religion: Commentaries on the Decline of Religious
      > > Liberty (Lanham NY:
      > > University Press of America, 1986), p. 84. Gary
      > > DeMar, The Untold
      > > Story (Atlanta, GA: American Vision, Inc., 1993), p.
      > > 113.
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.