Three Strikes Against John Roberts
By: Reed R. Heustis, Jr.
July 30, AD 2005

Before the chairs were even warm on the night of July 19, 2005 when President George W. Bush nominated John Roberts for the Supreme Court, Establishment organizations lined up in lock step behind Roberts in an effort to ensure his confirmation and to deceive millions. Many of these organizations are "Christian" family institutions.

What are grassroots Christian voters to think of Roberts? Most of them are gaga over anything Bush does, and so it is no surprise that they will likewise be duped into believing that Roberts is somehow one of the "good guys."

In fact, a casual perusal of the list of blind Bush/Roberts supporters reveals the Who's Who of false opposition: Focus on the Family, American Center for Law and Justice, American Family Association, Family Research Council, and Christian Coalition, just to name a few.

While most Christian voters are beginning to understand their duty to get involved in politics today, they unfortunately have not yet developed any sense of discernment. Instead, they are spoon-fed with countless lies by these Establishment organizations, and then they regurgitate them as if they were Gospel.

But just because organizations say that something is "good" does not mean that it is so. They need to be questioned.

While many tout Roberts as some sort of an excellent choice for the Supreme Court, Roberts actually fails the Three-Strikes-and-You're-Out test:

1. Does he understand the proper role of the judiciary within the American Constitutional framework?

2. Can Roberts be trusted to take the correct principled stand on the Constitutional right to life?

3. Does Roberts believe in the form of government that the Constitution guarantees?

First Pitch: Role of the Judiciary

On April 30, 2003 during his confirmation hearing for the District of Columbia Circuit, Illinois Senator Richard J. Durbin pointedly asked Roberts what Roberts’ position is on the abominable pro-abortion Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision. Roberts answered, “Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land. [I]t’s a little more than settled. It was reaffirmed in the face of a challenge that it should be overruled in the [Planned Parenthood v. Casey] decision. Accordingly, it’s the settled law of the land.”

Unfortunately, most lay voters will fail to notice the startling admission here with regard to Roe being the "settled law of the land." Then again, most lay voters do not own a copy of their own Constitution, let alone know what it says. [Readers can get their own pocket Constitutions delivered delivered directly to their home by clicking to: http://www.reedheustis.com/m/constitution.htm ]

When reading Article I, Section 1 of the Constitution, it becomes plainly clear that the Supreme Court does not have any power to make law: “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives."

The last time I checked, the Supreme Court was part of the judicial branch, not the legislative branch. Even a lay voter can discern that difference.

Ironically, Tony Perkins, president of Family Research Council, proclaimed, “I believe that Judge Roberts will strictly interpret the Constitution and not legislate from the bench." (emphasis added)

Poppycock!

If Roberts will strictly interpret the Constitution, then why does he fail to interpret Article I, Section 1 strictly? The most strict interpretation of that section would exclude any rationalization that Supreme Court decisions are somehow “settled law.”

Here's a little secret for you. That tiny three-letter-word that you find in Article I, Section 1, "all," actually means exactly that: all! A strict interpretation would mean the same.

Moreover, Perkins' statement that Roberts "will not legislate from the bench" is totally unintelligible in light of the fact that Roberts implicitly believes that the bench may legitimately make law. If Roberts totally rejected the idea of the bench making law, then why in the world would he consider Roe to be "settled law?" More contradictory nonsense.

Strike One!

Second Pitch: Constitutional Right to Life

Let’s face it: there is very little that we know about Roberts on the issue of abortion in light of the fact that he has very little paper trail. Furthermore, he has hardly uttered any opinion whatsoever on this subject, let alone others. In fact, columnist Ann Coulter brilliantly and humorously pointed out last week “that Roberts has gone through 50 years on this planet without ever saying anything controversial. That's just unnatural.”

How can pro-life voters trust Roberts to be an ally? How can he be trusted to uphold the Constitutional protections of life?

The only really solid tidbit upon which to rely is a legal brief that Roberts wrote in the early nineties stating that Roe had been erroneously decided. However, in 1994 he then went out of his way to point out publicly that as Deputy Solicitor General, these "views as a commentator on those cases do not necessarily reflect his views as an advocate for his former client, the United States."

What is even more revealing is that during that April 30, 2003 confirmation hearing for the District of Columbia Circuit Court, Roberts stated, “There’s nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying [Roe v. Wade as] precedent.” (In other words, Roberts would have no problem applying an unconstitutional precedent that would result in the further butchering of unborn babes in the womb.)

What an exciting nomination for pro-life forces! How in the world can Roberts be trusted?

Let's imagine for just one moment that you were an unborn baby who had the uncanny special knowledge that a judicial confirmation battle was brewing up here in the "real world." Knowing what little there is to know on Roberts, isn't it true that you would feel just a tad bit uneasy with the nomination of Roberts? Or would you rely upon blind faith in Bush like so many Christian voters do?

Strike Two!

Third Pitch: Form of Government

On July 19th, Roberts made a very brief acceptance speech in which he said, “Before I became a judge, my law practice consisted largely of arguing cases before the Court. That experience left me with a profound appreciation for the role of the Court in our constitutional democracy and a deep regard for the Court as an institution?" (emphasis added)

Most voters have been brainwashed by the media and the socialist education systems that the United States of America is somehow supposed to be a democracy, and so they would have failed to zero in on this canard. Presumably, a Harvard graduate like Roberts would know the truth.

This then begs the question: How can a Harvard graduate not be aware that the Founding Fathers rejected democratic government? Were the Federalist Papers never required reading? Was the Constitution never taught?

On November 23, 1787, James Madison wrote in Federalist No. 10, “… Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths."

The Constitution of the United States creates a republic, not a democracy. Article IV, Section 4 specifically mandates, "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government," not a democratic form.

They didn't teach that at Harvard?

Doesn't Roberts own a copy of the Constitution? Perhaps someone should send him one.

Either Roberts is just flat-out ignorant of the Constitutional guarantees of republican government, or worse, he deliberately ignores it. Whatever the case may be, he is totally ineligible to sit on the Supreme Court.

Strike three, you're out.

Get a Pocket Constitution delivered to your home!

Subscribe to The Christian Constitutionalist:
newsletter-subscribe@christianconstitutionalist.com

Return to Home Page

This site hosted by Host4Profit.