AdvanceUSAAmericans Defending Values and National Conservative Efforts
Home PageAbout UsLinksMediaActionSurveyDonateBlogContact Us




 Wednesday, March 17, 2010

Curt Levey explains how the health care debate could affect nominations to the Supreme Court.

posted on Wednesday, March 17, 2010 6:11:49 PM (Eastern Daylight Time, UTC-04:00)  #   
 Friday, March 05, 2010

The Weekly Standard asks a tough question about a suspicious judicial nomination by President Obama.

posted on Friday, March 05, 2010 6:57:01 PM (Eastern Standard Time, UTC-05:00)  #   
 Friday, February 12, 2010

LifeNews reports.

posted on Friday, February 12, 2010 8:52:45 PM (Eastern Standard Time, UTC-05:00)  #   
 Monday, February 08, 2010

Manny Miranda examines President Obama’s Judicial agenda while ABC News reports on the likelihood that the President will be faced with the opportunity to make nominations to the Supreme Court of the United States.

posted on Tuesday, February 09, 2010 12:06:53 AM (Eastern Standard Time, UTC-05:00)  #   
 Friday, February 05, 2010

LifeNews reports.

posted on Friday, February 05, 2010 8:17:28 PM (Eastern Standard Time, UTC-05:00)  #   
 Wednesday, January 20, 2010

Curt Levey explains.

posted on Wednesday, January 20, 2010 11:55:38 PM (Eastern Standard Time, UTC-05:00)  #   
 Thursday, December 31, 2009

LifeNews reports.

posted on Thursday, December 31, 2009 7:32:23 PM (Eastern Standard Time, UTC-05:00)  #   
 Wednesday, December 02, 2009

The Wall Street Journal reports.

posted on Wednesday, December 02, 2009 11:03:03 PM (Eastern Standard Time, UTC-05:00)  #   
 Tuesday, November 24, 2009

LifeNews reports.

 

See how your senators voted.

posted on Tuesday, November 24, 2009 6:06:29 PM (Eastern Standard Time, UTC-05:00)  #   
 Wednesday, November 18, 2009

LifeNews reports.

posted on Thursday, November 19, 2009 1:01:22 AM (Eastern Standard Time, UTC-05:00)  #   

Mario Diaz reflects on the nomination of Judge Hamilton.  Excerpts:

 

It is amazing to see the media reports on the nomination of Judge David Hamilton to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. The media apparently is interested in everything related to this nomination except the judge’s record.

 

. . .

 

In 2005, Judge Hamilton ordered the Speaker of the Indiana House to immediately stop the practice of “sectarian prayers” at the opening of the legislative session because the prayers were too Christian. He said that people “should refrain from using Christ’s name or title.”

posted on Thursday, November 19, 2009 1:00:26 AM (Eastern Standard Time, UTC-05:00)  #   
 Monday, November 16, 2009

Curt Levey reports on the brand of activism of Judge Hamilton, President Obama’s nominee for the 7th Circuit.  Excerpt:

 

This week, the Senate votes on President Obama’s nomination of District Court Judge David Hamilton to the Seventh Circuit. Because of Hamilton’s fundraising activities for ACORN, his leadership positions with the Indiana branch of the ACLU, his statements supporting judicial activism, and most importantly, his rulings putting liberal ideology above the rule of law, he is the first and only Obama circuit nominee to draw heated opposition.

There are many examples of Judge Hamilton’s tendency towards liberal judicial activism (see letter from Sen. Sessions). However, the most bizarre and controversial instance is Hamilton’s 2005 ruling prohibiting prayers that mention Jesus Christ in the Indiana House of Representatives, but allowing prayers that mention Allah. While troubling in any context, the religious double standard in Hamilton’s ruling is particularly deserving of close scrutiny in light of Major Nidal Hasan’s recent shooting rampage at Fort Hood.

posted on Tuesday, November 17, 2009 12:27:13 AM (Eastern Standard Time, UTC-05:00)  #   
 Thursday, November 12, 2009

Investor’s Business Daily reports on the nomination of David Hamilton to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals.  LifeNews also reports, highlighting Hamilton’s pro-abortion stance.

 

Jack Park explains Judge Hamilton’s dangerous brand of judicial activism.  Excerpt:

 

In other words, Judge Hamilton thinks that the decisions of federal district courts amend the Constitution, just as the amendment process does. This is unacceptable.

 

Judges act appropriately when they apply the law, not when they make it. And they certainly shouldn’t be in the business of trying to amend the Constitution by the whim of their decisions. Any judge who says that he or she makes law or amends the Constitution has a skewed vision of what the proper role of a judge is.

posted on Friday, November 13, 2009 12:30:42 AM (Eastern Standard Time, UTC-05:00)  #   
 Thursday, November 05, 2009

Fox News reports.  Excerpt:

 

Obama chose Hamilton, a U.S. district judge in Indiana, as his first judicial nomination in March. The White House has characterized Hamilton as a moderate pick whose judicial record would temper criticism from conservative and liberal extremists -- bringing an end to the political confirmation wars that have long accompanied such judicial nominations.

 

But Republican opposition to Hamilton's nomination has emerged over rulings in a host of cases -- from barring Christian prayer in the Indiana Legislature to blocking enforcement of certain state abortion statutes.

 

In a letter penned Nov. 3 to his GOP colleagues, Republican Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama blasted Hamilton for using his position to "drive a political agenda." Hamilton stated in a 2003 speech that the role of a judge includes "writing footnotes to the Constitution" and believes "empathy" should influence a judge's decision making, Sessions wrote.

 

The AP also analyzes the significance of the nomination of Judge Hamilton.  Excerpt:

 

Sessions made it clear his party will put up a fight against confirming either. He cited Hamilton's position in the late 1980s as a vice president for litigation and board member of the Indiana chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union. Sessions also complained about Hamilton's judicial rulings.

 

"Instead of embracing the constitutional standard of jurisprudence, Judge Hamilton has embraced this empathy standard, this feeling standard. Whatever that is, it is not law. It is not a legal standard," Sessions said.

posted on Thursday, November 05, 2009 11:44:12 PM (Eastern Standard Time, UTC-05:00)  #   
 Monday, November 02, 2009

LifeNews reports (scroll down) on the vast difference between a justice who respects the integrity of the Constitution and one who does not.  Excerpt:

 

“The fight is about the Supreme Court inventing new rights nobody ever thought existed,” Justice Antonin Scalia said in an appearance at the University of Arizona College of Law. “Right to abortion?” he asked. “Come on. Nobody thought it violated anything in the Constitution for 200 years. It was criminal.” “They may be bad ideas,” Scalia said. “But don't tell me it’s unconstitutional.” But Justice Stephen Breyer, who shared the stage with Scalia, said his colleague was taking an overly literalistic approach to the 18th century document. He said that the changing nature of society, by necessity, requires more than looking at what Scalia called “originalism.” “You don't look to the details,” Breyer said. “You look to the value.” Scalia specifically warned that those who approach the Constitution as Breyer suggests will not always find courts expanding the definition of individual liberties. “It goes both ways,” he said. “The only thing you can be sure of is the Constitution will mean whatever the American people want it to mean today,” Scalia continued. “And that’s not what a constitution is for,” he said. “The whole purpose of a constitution is to constrain the desires of the current society.”

posted on Monday, November 02, 2009 11:02:01 PM (Eastern Standard Time, UTC-05:00)  #   
 Monday, October 19, 2009

Jillian Bandes explains.

posted on Tuesday, October 20, 2009 12:16:06 AM (Eastern Daylight Time, UTC-04:00)  #   
 Wednesday, October 14, 2009

Curt Levey explains the liberal’s latest court packing scheme and gives a preview of potential future battles over Supreme Court nominations.

posted on Wednesday, October 14, 2009 5:42:08 PM (Eastern Daylight Time, UTC-04:00)  #   
 Monday, October 12, 2009

The Wall Street Journal reports.

posted on Monday, October 12, 2009 6:18:23 PM (Eastern Daylight Time, UTC-04:00)  #   
 Tuesday, September 08, 2009

LifeNews reports.

posted on Wednesday, September 09, 2009 2:53:15 AM (Eastern Daylight Time, UTC-04:00)  #   
 Friday, August 07, 2009

The New York Times reports.  As does LifeNews.

 

See how both your senators voted on Sotomayor’s confirmation to the Supreme Court.

posted on Friday, August 07, 2009 9:47:50 PM (Eastern Daylight Time, UTC-04:00)  #   

Curt Levey explains how the cause of judicial restraint may have been advanced in the Sotomayor confirmation despite the fact that another activist judge has reached the Supreme Court.

 

Mario Diaz finds similar encouragement in the possibility that the “living Constitution” fallacy may have taken a beating during the confirmation process.

posted on Friday, August 07, 2009 9:41:46 PM (Eastern Daylight Time, UTC-04:00)  #   
 Wednesday, August 05, 2009

The Wall Street Journal reports.  As does the Washington Post.

posted on Wednesday, August 05, 2009 7:52:58 PM (Eastern Daylight Time, UTC-04:00)  #   

Marco Rubio explains why Judge Sotomayor’s nomination to the Supreme Court should be opposed based on her judicial philosophy and demonstrates why opposing Sotomayor is not anti-Hispanic.

posted on Wednesday, August 05, 2009 7:51:50 PM (Eastern Daylight Time, UTC-04:00)  #   
 Monday, August 03, 2009

LifeNews reports.

posted on Monday, August 03, 2009 9:39:23 PM (Eastern Daylight Time, UTC-04:00)  #   

The Committee for Justice has prepared advertisements designed to educate the public about Sonia Sotomayor’s nomination to the Supreme Court.  They hope to run these ads in strategic states but will need financial support to do so.

posted on Monday, August 03, 2009 9:38:18 PM (Eastern Daylight Time, UTC-04:00)  #   
 Friday, July 31, 2009

Former Rep. Tom Tancredo explains Sonia Sotomayor’s ties to a radical organization.

posted on Friday, July 31, 2009 6:30:57 PM (Eastern Daylight Time, UTC-04:00)  #   

LifeNews reports.

posted on Friday, July 31, 2009 6:29:11 PM (Eastern Daylight Time, UTC-04:00)  #   
 Wednesday, July 29, 2009

Politico reports.  CFJ Executive Director Curt Levey applauds the GOP senators on the committee who took a stand against judicial activism, while Wendy Long finds the vote an encouraging sign that “[t]his vote will mark the moment when Senators began, in their constitutional exercise of "advice and consent," to push the Supreme Court back to its proper role of judicial restraint under the Constitution”

 

CNN also reports.

posted on Wednesday, July 29, 2009 7:24:15 PM (Eastern Daylight Time, UTC-04:00)  #   
 Monday, July 27, 2009

Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) compares Sonia Sotomayor’s hearing testimony to her record and past statements, concluding that she should not be confirmed.

posted on Monday, July 27, 2009 8:42:42 PM (Eastern Daylight Time, UTC-04:00)  #   

David McIntosh explains.  Excerpt:

 

As Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s confirmation hearing began last week, many commentators predicted that she would portray herself as a moderate judge committed to judicial restraint. True to these expectations, Judge Sotomayor described her judicial philosophy as quite simple: “fidelity to the law.” Yet the judge’s history on the Second Circuit—not to mention her earlier speeches—suggest that she believes judges can go beyond the law to make policy decisions. For this reason, a vote to confirm Judge Sotomayor is almost certainly a vote in favor of restricting Second Amendment protections and property rights, upholding racial preferences, and providing unlimited abortion on demand.

posted on Monday, July 27, 2009 8:41:32 PM (Eastern Daylight Time, UTC-04:00)  #   

The Seattle Post Intelligencer reports.  The original data from Rasmussen is here.

posted on Monday, July 27, 2009 8:37:54 PM (Eastern Daylight Time, UTC-04:00)  #   

The Washington Times editorial board explains why the Senate Judiciary Committee should vote down Sonia Sotomayor’s nomination to the Supreme Court.  Excerpt:

 

Senators of both parties should be offended by the evasive and misleading answers Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor provided to written questions senators submitted following her July 13 through 17 public hearings. The Senate should not accept such evasiveness.

 

Of particular note is Judge Sotomayor's dodge of a highly important question from Alabama's Sen. Jeff Sessions, the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, concerning her dissenting opinion that murderers and rapists have a right to vote while still behind bars. The relevant part of the question read as follows: "Doesn't your dissent in [the case] ignore the fact that the convict's crimes and not any state-based racial discrimination made the felons ineligible to vote?"

 

Read the full editorial here.

posted on Monday, July 27, 2009 8:31:11 PM (Eastern Daylight Time, UTC-04:00)  #   

CNN reports.

posted on Monday, July 27, 2009 8:28:36 PM (Eastern Daylight Time, UTC-04:00)  #   

The Christian Science Monitor reports.

posted on Monday, July 27, 2009 8:26:24 PM (Eastern Daylight Time, UTC-04:00)  #   

Red State reports.

posted on Monday, July 27, 2009 8:25:18 PM (Eastern Daylight Time, UTC-04:00)  #   
 Wednesday, July 22, 2009

The Wall Street Journal reports.

posted on Wednesday, July 22, 2009 11:57:29 PM (Eastern Daylight Time, UTC-04:00)  #   
 Tuesday, July 21, 2009

Roll Call reports.

posted on Tuesday, July 21, 2009 5:45:00 PM (Eastern Daylight Time, UTC-04:00)  #   
 Saturday, July 18, 2009

Nathaniel Ward reports from the Heritage Foundation.

posted on Saturday, July 18, 2009 4:23:31 AM (Eastern Daylight Time, UTC-04:00)  #   

Sonia Sotomayor’s testimony has been anything but controversial.  The way she spoke in hearings you would think she was Chief Justice Roberts.  A number of observers have noted the discrepancy between the Sotomayor of these hearings and the Sotomayor of the past.

 

Sotomayor: Rhetoric v. Record (Wendy Long)

 

Obama's Supreme Court Pick Treads Careful Line (Reuters)

 

The Nominee’s Evil Twin (Jim Geraghty)

“Why does the Sonia Sotomayor of 2009 sound so different from that of previous years?”

 

Sotomayor Accused of Contradicting Herself on Involvement in Pro-Abortion Group (LifeNews)

 

Sotomayor Shows the Way: It would be a fine thing if we could take the judge at her word (Andrew C. McCarthy)

 

Grading Sotomayor (Ed Whelan)

 

While Sotomayor’s mild rhetoric may be frustrating to conservatives who want to have a thorough debate on the proper role of judges by examining her true judicial philosophy, the one silver lining is that despite a 60-vote Democrat majority in the Senate, Sotomayor feels the need to sound like a non-activist, constitutionalist.

posted on Saturday, July 18, 2009 4:22:03 AM (Eastern Daylight Time, UTC-04:00)  #   

Jim Geraghty asks, “Are we examining Sonia Sotomayor or John Roberts?”

posted on Saturday, July 18, 2009 4:17:51 AM (Eastern Daylight Time, UTC-04:00)  #   

Jonah Goldberg examines Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s recent words alleging that one of the motivations behind Roe vs. Wade was to keep undesirable populations from procreating.  Her comments are a disturbing reminder of the racist, eugenicist roots of the pro-abortion modern movement and they are also a sobering reminder of the importance of Supreme Court nominations.

posted on Saturday, July 18, 2009 4:14:26 AM (Eastern Daylight Time, UTC-04:00)  #   

The AP reports.

posted on Saturday, July 18, 2009 4:10:47 AM (Eastern Daylight Time, UTC-04:00)  #   
 Monday, July 13, 2009

If you have time during the day to watch the important confirmation hearings being held in the Senate Judiciary Committee, please do.  Nominations to the Supreme Court have drastic implications for the future of our nation and our freedom.  Concerned citizens should be watching their elected officials carefully and encouraging their fellow citizens to contemplate the proper role of judges in our constitutional form of government.

 

You can watch the hearings live on the Senate Judiciary Committee’s website.

 

Your local PBS station will be carrying the hearings live, and the major cable news networks (C-SPAN, Fox News, and CNN) will likely provide much coverage of the hearings as well.


Photo source: LA Times


posted on Tuesday, July 14, 2009 2:04:15 AM (Eastern Daylight Time, UTC-04:00)  #