Liberal activists have been working indefatigably to pack the courts – the unelected branch of government – with radicals who disrespect the Constitution?
While Republicans have successfully blocked some of Obama’s most extreme nominees, they have voted to confirm the vast majority of them. Many Republicans have insisted for years that anyone who is “qualified” to serve as a judge deserves to be confirmed, irrespective of their judicial philosophy or ideology. This school of thought suggests that as long as the nominee has the requisite resume and is clean of ethical violations, he/she should sail through the nomination process. That is the grim consequence of elections, they contend.
This rationale is seriously flawed. Any judge who conjures up new rights that are not in the Constitution or denies those that are explicitly enumerated is automatically unqualified to serve on any court. On Monday, one such individual will receive a floor vote in the Senate.
Read More: http://www.redstate.com/dhorowitz3/2012/06/11/sena...
As a young law clerk, Mr. Hurwitz played a key role authoring Able and Able II; two 1972 decisions which are clearly reflected and expanded upon in the Supreme Court’s ruling on Roe v. Wade. Roe stands almost undisputed as an unprecedented judicial usurpation of legislative authority in its fabrication of a “right” to abortion—a “right” that had never before existed in the Constitution.
This trend continued in his arguments to the Supreme Court in Ring v. Arizona. Acting as a pro-bono attorney, Mr. Hurwitz suggested that the Supreme Court change the wording of the Constitution in order to arrive at a ruling based on his beliefs, not on the rule of law.
This in itself should disqualify him from serving on a higher court, irrespective of how much “experience” he has promulgating his legislative initiatives from the be...
As a young law clerk, Mr. Hurwitz played a key role authoring Able and Able II; two 1972 decisions which are clearly reflected and expanded upon in the Supreme Court’s ruling on Roe v. Wade. Roe stands almost undisputed as an unprecedented judicial usurpation of legislative authority in its fabrication of a “right” to abortion—a “right” that had never before existed in the Constitution.
This trend continued in his arguments to the Supreme Court in Ring v. Arizona. Acting as a pro-bono attorney, Mr. Hurwitz suggested that the Supreme Court change the wording of the Constitution in order to arrive at a ruling based on his beliefs, not on the rule of law.
This in itself should disqualify him from serving on a higher court, irrespective of how much “experience” he has promulgating his legislative initiatives from the bench. Yet, his nomination was passed out of committee last month with bipartisan support from Lindsey Graham, Tom Coburn, and Jon Kyl.
http://www.redstate.com/dhoro...