One Question For
Nominee Roberts
The Real Question That Must Be Discussed

By Jim Kirwan
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.



This Site Served by TheHostPros