- 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.