This comment has received too many negative votesshow
should an impeachment trial occur, the chief justices presides. this chief justice was appointed by GWBush. I wonder why he didn't just appoint him Supreme Court Justice instead of Chief Justice. I wonder why...
Oh for crying out loud what they're really trying to defend here when they say "right to privacy" is right to fetal homicide. These turds need to get over their compulsion over defending abortion.
It would have required an Amendment to create the Supreme Court, but Madison and Ellsworth did it with the First Judiciary Act (1789). Congress is not authorized to create a Supreme Court. There is no valid court operating within the framework of the Constitution.
Section 1. The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.
You're right, the Congress has no power to create the Supreme Court. It's because a higher authority already has.
"Allowing for" and "creating" are two different things. To create the Judicial Branch requires an Amendment as stipulated in Article V.
The Judicial Branch and its details were left out of the US Constitution for the same reason that it was never offered as an Amendment: the States would never approve of it. An Act doesn't require the approval of the States -- a simple majority vote is necessary for its passage.
Wrong. The Constitution creates the Supreme Court, and then gives Congress the power to create inferior courts. But the Supreme Court is created by the Constitution, and can neither be created nor destroyed by the Congress.
"shall be vested in one supreme Court"
Compare this to the first clauses of Articles I and II. The Constitution creates the Supreme Court equally as much as it creates the Congress and the Presidency.
"Shall and will are both modal verbs in English primarily used to express the future. However, neither shall nor will is the principal method of expressing what is going to happen in the future."
Madison and his law merchant cronies understand these distinctions: hucksters they.
You are so incredibly wrong on this issue. Point to a part of the Judiciary Act of 1789 that, as you claim, created the Supreme Court. It did a few things, one of which was to create 13 district courts and 3 circuit courts. The Supreme Court was already established by the Constitution. If you disagree, then I ask you this... why would the Framers have left it up to Congress to decide whether a judicial branch should even be established? Would they not have an incentive to not create it?
I wish Alito, Roberts, Scalia, and Thomas would be on a plane together and the plane would crash and kill everyone of them. Four God Damn Catholics on the United States Supreme Court. That is like having the Vatican making decisions about what 300 million United States citizens can and can not do. I hate all four of those bastards. They want big government and to take away the freedoms and liberties of all US citizens. They are PIGS for the Pope.
Former Senator Fred Dalton Thompson was a proponent in getting this wonderful man, Justice Roberts appointed to the Supreme Court. Two fine men I am proud to be supporting. God Bless them both.
I find you everywhere crazyforcrowe, you and I share the same interests it seems... or almost should I remind! lol
Yeah John G. Roberts is an amazingly qualified and deserving Chief Justice, George Bush has defenitely scored a perfect score on this one, there's no denying that for any reasonable person.
@USA04July1776 you asserting that only a reasonable person would find a right wing nut a deserving justice is comical. saying he is deserving and that anyone questioning it is unreasonable are equally dismissable as being biased nonsense.
Most Americans are too uninformed and stupid to know what's going on. They don't know how to Google "BERTHA CHAMPAGNE" or "MARVIN BUSH". There's no 'free press' here or justice system. How many rights are Americans going to lose as the Bush Administration continues to violate our rights and the Constitution? Everybody has heard of Laci Peterson, but no one knows who Bertha Champagne was or Marvin Bush's role in 9/11 locations, security and companies.
Who is Really Uninformed.....There IS still free press and Speech. No decision has denied that right....only extended it. Do some reading and u will see. Uniformed my ass. Cunt
Okay, dicksucker, then why haven't you heard of Bertha Champagne and Marvin Bush????? ASSHOLE? Why does everyone in the U.S. know who Laci Peterson was, and Scott Peterson went to jail for murder on less evidence after they played that shit on tv for over a year, but Marvin Bush can run someone down in his front yard, and smash them into a building in their front yard, DICKSUCKER, and no television coverage at all. Go fuck your uninformed self, and give Marvin a Blow Job while you're at it.
When you listen to Judge Roberts, you have to listen carefully because he's very smart. He states what the "Courts" have done with privacy and the couple examples in the Constitution, but he does not state what "HE" thinks privacy entails. Roberts does not believe in the general right of privacy and neither does Scalia and Thomas.
That's because HIS personal views are not important with regards to decisions issued. He is trying to remain OBJECTIVE. Personal views should always be kept out of the Court's decision process.
Judge Roberts PERSONALLY BELIEVES in whats called origional intent which says that you must only consider what the constitution originally said and it cannot be interperted to adjust to our modern world. That PERSONAL BELIEF of his is an extreme position in the legal world and the net result is it reduces our freedoms in this country to only what he PERSONAL BELIEVES the origional intent is. He has no interest of bettering mankind and is simply trying to force us to live like it's 1776.
I think your a little off the mark there. It is up to the people to change the constitution as they see fit (Amendments) as well as throught the use of judicial review. Constitutional Absolutism is what you are talking about. His beliefs are not part of his statements, the way he udertstands, interprets, and applies the law is.Read some of his opinions and read the constitution.This country is based on it,move to Canada if you dont want to abide this nations laws.
It is a sad state of affairs when people can claim that an "evolutionary" constitution (or living document) is the norm in the legal world and that a strict interpretation of the document is "extreme". If a judge can increase our freedom by interpreting words differently than before, then presumably can't judges also decrease our freedoms by interpreting words differently? Why should we trust that judges who would interpret the constitution as a living document would always make us more free?
Actually, no. Originilism is the Constitution should be interpreted by the original intent of the framers, NOT one's own interpretation. THAT would be an activist judge. And actually, originalism protects rights, not denies them. Sorry, you got it completely wrong.
Unless of course your black..or a woman or poor. It was a great time to be alive if you were a rich white male. Heck you could own people, run a business with almost no labor costs, beat your wife and kids. No wonder they set it up like that. Who doesn't want cheap labor? Next time your wife says something you don't like just beat the crap out of her. Sounds great to me.
The idea that original intent means we should live like they did in colonial times is idiotic. Learn a little something about before replying, please.
I'm guessing you've never heard of the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments? When was it legal to beat your wife and kids, exactly? Where in the Constitution does it was that kind of behavior is acceptable?
This liberal idiocy is exactly what causes the minorities to make no progress. How exactly did Martin Luther King make all his progress with the government against him? I guess every successful black CEO is a token appointee of the system and only welfare and quotas can hope to make the evil white man stop.
You idiots and everyone who follows this sick philosophy makes me sad. Go back to the ass end of history Jim Crow
And what is so wrong with simply passing a law to address an injustice? The living document idea makes the system fall to the whim of unelected officials with no accountablitiy. Plessy v Ferguson is the single greatest example of judicial activism. The judges ignored the intent of the authors and ruled on what they thought should be done. Yet the liberals actually use this as an example with Brown v Board of ed. for why we need judicial activism.
i personally like roberts, hes definitely more intelligent than the others and much more modest. i think if anything it has improved the supreme court.
Cuntservatives dont give a damn about your privacy. Informationis power and money. Coporations data mine every aspect of your life so they can target you.
Thank you for posting this, politicalhack28.
writersblock26 4 months ago
Can anyone watch the first 30 seconds of this and think Specter is at all qualified to question anybody on this, let alone Justice Roberts?
Cfreer404 4 months ago
i had to stop watching this video after it took arlen specter 30 seconds to speak 5 words
navid500 1 year ago
I concur with the Chief Justice. He provides substantial analytical evidence plus I like his reference to the third amendment.
tac209 1 year ago
Mr Specter - The lowest circle in hell is reserved for traitors
andro89 1 year ago
who the FUCK keeps coughing????
kimht90 1 year ago
Notice how Spector called it" A So Called right to privacy
bubba007ss 1 year ago
@bubba007ss I think he was quoting from Justice Robert's own memorandum though, no?
jpsartrean 9 months ago
Specter - The lowest circle of hell is reserved for traitors like yourself.
andro89 2 years ago
@andro89
The only traitors are the Southern Democrats that switched to the GOP.
Einsteinbomb 1 year ago
I felt pretty bad for Arlen Specter watching this, he was really battling Hodgkin's at this point.
KOHF34 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
should an impeachment trial occur, the chief justices presides. this chief justice was appointed by GWBush. I wonder why he didn't just appoint him Supreme Court Justice instead of Chief Justice. I wonder why...
sumdumfoo1 3 years ago
because there was a vacancy for chief justice
kgj08 3 years ago
sumdumfoo gets pwned by... KGJ08
danoftherepublic 2 years ago
Pwned amd super-pwned,
Epic fail.
KonradAdenauer 2 years ago
Oh for crying out loud what they're really trying to defend here when they say "right to privacy" is right to fetal homicide. These turds need to get over their compulsion over defending abortion.
JohananRaatz 3 years ago
It would have required an Amendment to create the Supreme Court, but Madison and Ellsworth did it with the First Judiciary Act (1789). Congress is not authorized to create a Supreme Court. There is no valid court operating within the framework of the Constitution.
neothomist1275 3 years ago
Article III
Section 1. The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.
You're right, the Congress has no power to create the Supreme Court. It's because a higher authority already has.
2ndPistonHonda 3 years ago
US Constitution -- 1787
US Supreme Court -- 1789
"Allowing for" and "creating" are two different things. To create the Judicial Branch requires an Amendment as stipulated in Article V.
The Judicial Branch and its details were left out of the US Constitution for the same reason that it was never offered as an Amendment: the States would never approve of it. An Act doesn't require the approval of the States -- a simple majority vote is necessary for its passage.
neothomist1275 3 years ago 2
Wrong. The Constitution creates the Supreme Court, and then gives Congress the power to create inferior courts. But the Supreme Court is created by the Constitution, and can neither be created nor destroyed by the Congress.
"shall be vested in one supreme Court"
Compare this to the first clauses of Articles I and II. The Constitution creates the Supreme Court equally as much as it creates the Congress and the Presidency.
2ndPistonHonda 3 years ago
"Shall and will are both modal verbs in English primarily used to express the future. However, neither shall nor will is the principal method of expressing what is going to happen in the future."
Madison and his law merchant cronies understand these distinctions: hucksters they.
neothomist1275 3 years ago
You are so incredibly wrong on this issue. Point to a part of the Judiciary Act of 1789 that, as you claim, created the Supreme Court. It did a few things, one of which was to create 13 district courts and 3 circuit courts. The Supreme Court was already established by the Constitution. If you disagree, then I ask you this... why would the Framers have left it up to Congress to decide whether a judicial branch should even be established? Would they not have an incentive to not create it?
kgj08 3 years ago
"the Judiciary Act of 1789...create(d) 13 district courts and 3 circuit courts."
To first step in the expansion of the 10 mile jurisdiction of the United States.
"why would the Framers have left it up to Congress to decide whether a judicial branch should even be established?"
Because the States would not have ratified the document.
"The Supreme Court was already established by the Constitution"
'Shall' and 'will' are conditional. Please refer to my previous posts.
neothomist1275 3 years ago
he loox lixe a chameleon
great lawyer
8data 3 years ago
justice roberts
on ronald reagan
what do yout thinx about that
8data 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I wish Alito, Roberts, Scalia, and Thomas would be on a plane together and the plane would crash and kill everyone of them. Four God Damn Catholics on the United States Supreme Court. That is like having the Vatican making decisions about what 300 million United States citizens can and can not do. I hate all four of those bastards. They want big government and to take away the freedoms and liberties of all US citizens. They are PIGS for the Pope.
cypresseert 3 years ago
"They are PIGS for the Pope"
I thought the Jesuit Black Pope was the secret ruler of the world. LMAO
sunnygirl213 3 years ago
Former Senator Fred Dalton Thompson was a proponent in getting this wonderful man, Justice Roberts appointed to the Supreme Court. Two fine men I am proud to be supporting. God Bless them both.
crazyforcrowe 3 years ago 2
I find you everywhere crazyforcrowe, you and I share the same interests it seems... or almost should I remind! lol
Yeah John G. Roberts is an amazingly qualified and deserving Chief Justice, George Bush has defenitely scored a perfect score on this one, there's no denying that for any reasonable person.
USA04July1776 3 years ago 2
I feel so honored to go to the same high school as John Roberts.
johnny7782 3 years ago
@USA04July1776 you asserting that only a reasonable person would find a right wing nut a deserving justice is comical. saying he is deserving and that anyone questioning it is unreasonable are equally dismissable as being biased nonsense.
slyjokerg 1 year ago
Most Americans are too uninformed and stupid to know what's going on. They don't know how to Google "BERTHA CHAMPAGNE" or "MARVIN BUSH". There's no 'free press' here or justice system. How many rights are Americans going to lose as the Bush Administration continues to violate our rights and the Constitution? Everybody has heard of Laci Peterson, but no one knows who Bertha Champagne was or Marvin Bush's role in 9/11 locations, security and companies.
CTTBA 4 years ago
Who is Really Uninformed.....There IS still free press and Speech. No decision has denied that right....only extended it. Do some reading and u will see. Uniformed my ass. Cunt
sigapoop 4 years ago
Okay, dicksucker, then why haven't you heard of Bertha Champagne and Marvin Bush????? ASSHOLE? Why does everyone in the U.S. know who Laci Peterson was, and Scott Peterson went to jail for murder on less evidence after they played that shit on tv for over a year, but Marvin Bush can run someone down in his front yard, and smash them into a building in their front yard, DICKSUCKER, and no television coverage at all. Go fuck your uninformed self, and give Marvin a Blow Job while you're at it.
CTTBA 4 years ago
Mature response.
sigapoop 4 years ago
your an idiot.
sigapoop 4 years ago
ahhh....ahhh...ahhh. Arlen Specter is so fucking old, as are so many other US Senators.
ndesai256 4 years ago
When you listen to Judge Roberts, you have to listen carefully because he's very smart. He states what the "Courts" have done with privacy and the couple examples in the Constitution, but he does not state what "HE" thinks privacy entails. Roberts does not believe in the general right of privacy and neither does Scalia and Thomas.
padraicbg 4 years ago
That's because HIS personal views are not important with regards to decisions issued. He is trying to remain OBJECTIVE. Personal views should always be kept out of the Court's decision process.
sigapoop 4 years ago
Judge Roberts PERSONALLY BELIEVES in whats called origional intent which says that you must only consider what the constitution originally said and it cannot be interperted to adjust to our modern world. That PERSONAL BELIEF of his is an extreme position in the legal world and the net result is it reduces our freedoms in this country to only what he PERSONAL BELIEVES the origional intent is. He has no interest of bettering mankind and is simply trying to force us to live like it's 1776.
padraicbg 4 years ago
I think your a little off the mark there. It is up to the people to change the constitution as they see fit (Amendments) as well as throught the use of judicial review. Constitutional Absolutism is what you are talking about. His beliefs are not part of his statements, the way he udertstands, interprets, and applies the law is.Read some of his opinions and read the constitution.This country is based on it,move to Canada if you dont want to abide this nations laws.
sigapoop 4 years ago
It is a sad state of affairs when people can claim that an "evolutionary" constitution (or living document) is the norm in the legal world and that a strict interpretation of the document is "extreme". If a judge can increase our freedom by interpreting words differently than before, then presumably can't judges also decrease our freedoms by interpreting words differently? Why should we trust that judges who would interpret the constitution as a living document would always make us more free?
DTrimms 3 years ago 2
Actually, no. Originilism is the Constitution should be interpreted by the original intent of the framers, NOT one's own interpretation. THAT would be an activist judge. And actually, originalism protects rights, not denies them. Sorry, you got it completely wrong.
robislost 3 years ago 5
Unless of course your black..or a woman or poor. It was a great time to be alive if you were a rich white male. Heck you could own people, run a business with almost no labor costs, beat your wife and kids. No wonder they set it up like that. Who doesn't want cheap labor? Next time your wife says something you don't like just beat the crap out of her. Sounds great to me.
trhisdone 2 years ago
The idea that original intent means we should live like they did in colonial times is idiotic. Learn a little something about before replying, please.
robislost 2 years ago
I'm guessing you've never heard of the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments? When was it legal to beat your wife and kids, exactly? Where in the Constitution does it was that kind of behavior is acceptable?
robislost 2 years ago
This liberal idiocy is exactly what causes the minorities to make no progress. How exactly did Martin Luther King make all his progress with the government against him? I guess every successful black CEO is a token appointee of the system and only welfare and quotas can hope to make the evil white man stop.
You idiots and everyone who follows this sick philosophy makes me sad. Go back to the ass end of history Jim Crow
charleshoskinson 2 years ago
And what is so wrong with simply passing a law to address an injustice? The living document idea makes the system fall to the whim of unelected officials with no accountablitiy. Plessy v Ferguson is the single greatest example of judicial activism. The judges ignored the intent of the authors and ruled on what they thought should be done. Yet the liberals actually use this as an example with Brown v Board of ed. for why we need judicial activism.
charleshoskinson 2 years ago
Precisely. Passing laws to address an injustice is what was meant to happen as opposed to construing a law or statute as one sees fit.
robislost 2 years ago
I am shocked he believes in due process and substantive due process. Clarence Thomas and Scalia would say theres no such thing as any privacy
ngatcha10 4 years ago
Roberts is probably the smartest justice on the court.
ngatcha10 4 years ago 12
@ngatcha10 roberts is a right wing nut.
slyjokerg 1 year ago
@ngatcha10 Not a chance. He's a good justice, but that title without a doubt goes to Justice Scalia.
netster007z 1 year ago
@ngatcha10 Agreed.
writersblock26 4 months ago
I actually think that judge Roberts spells it out pretty well. What exactly are you Libtards missing?
johnlaw63 4 years ago
hey if it keeps me alive and safe i dont give a fuck wat the government does
batmanzella 4 years ago
"Those who trade liberty for security deserve neither, and will lose both."
MooseOfReason 4 years ago
dude thats an awesome quote
batmanzella 3 years ago
Benjamin Franklin said it.
MooseOfReason 3 years ago
Such a damn legacy of Bush... he'll hurt the nation even when he retires in 2009 through the justices he's leaving behind as a president...
EsotericDesi 4 years ago
i personally like roberts, hes definitely more intelligent than the others and much more modest. i think if anything it has improved the supreme court.
LordRavenX8 4 years ago
that person hacking in the background should have left the room. it's hard to hear him with that distraction.
pootron 4 years ago
are you sure that's coming from conservatives and not liberals? how about BOTH aspects of them have issues, aren't we suppose to balance power?
CzarinaCzarina 4 years ago
Cuntservatives dont give a damn about your privacy. Informationis power and money. Coporations data mine every aspect of your life so they can target you.
thegoosebrain 4 years ago
Ha! "cuntservatives", never heard that one!
monk54321 4 years ago
Kind of cute. He didn't even bring up the ninth amendment, wherein unenumerated rights are also protected.
blackavarbunnie 4 years ago