|
There
is only one major question that must be answered by any appointee who is being
considered for the United States Supreme Court, and that question goes directly
to the heart and soul of this nation because it deals directly with "The
Rule of Law."
This nominee should be asked how he
would have voted on the question of The Bush Election Campaign vs. Al Gore, back
in 2000: because the decision of the Supreme Court to intervene at that juncture
in the National Presidential Election of 2000 quite literally changed the course
of history. Specifically Mr. Roberts should be asked how he would have voted,
not on the outcome of the case - but as to whether or not the Court should have
agreed to hear that case at all. What is and was at issue is whether he would
have honored the law and declined to interfere, or whether he would have ignored
the constitution and chosen to hear the case as the Rehnquist Court ultimately
decided to do.
In these hearings much will be made of
"the Rule of Law" but if the nominee is not clear about the separation
of powers or when that line between branches of the federal government can be
crossed: then regardless of any other qualifications that nominee should be
denied the appointment. If this Congress does anything less then they will be
complicit and active co-sponsors of the original treason, which was committed by
Rehnquist, Kennedy, Scalia, O'Conner and Thomas.
There are eighteen Senators who will be
asking questions of this man, but unless this question becomes a part of the
hearings, and is discussed, the American public will not have been served by
this on-going exercise in the ratification of the continuing crime that has
haunted the federal courts and the government since that Supreme-Gang-of-Five
broke the "Rule of Law" on 12, 12, 2000.
|
studios