Judicial Doublespeak?
The President had said that he would appoint "people who will strictly interpret the Constitution" and hailed Roberts as such.
Such rhetoric is encouraging, but Roberts' own rhetoric is contradictory on the matter as he sees Roe v. Wade as "law of the land". Since Article I Section 1 of the Constitution says "All legislative powers" are vested in Congress, a strict interpretation would not accept a court decision as law.
Apparently in President Bush's mind a strict constructionist would not legislate from the bench, but would still accept previous court decisions as legislation. This duplicity is not surprising from a politician who aims to promote a "culture of life" while funding abortion advocacy groups with our tax dollars (along with other unconstitutional spending).
Pray for President Bush.
Hat Tip: Lee Shelton.
posted by Eaglet at 4:02 AM
2 Comments:
Several of the President's other judicial nominees, William Pryor for an example, stated basically the same thing in their conformation hearings.
Deborah,
I think it could be the reason for the doublespeak, but since the Constitution says that Congress, not the courts, have "all legislative power" (Article 1, Section 1), then it is improper to call a court decision "law of the land."
<< Home