Tuesday, August 16, 2011

Obama's worst Judge yet

Victoria Frances Nourse, Obama’s pick for the 7th Circuit Appeals Court, is a Judge after Obama’s Muslim - Communist heart; she wants to re-write the Constitution.

By de Andréa

My friend Philip Jauregui at JAG…no… not that JAG, the conservative Judicial Action Group. He alerted me to possibly the worst judicial nominee yet by President Obama: Judge Victoria Frances Nourse seeks a promotion to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, ruling over Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin. Nourse is even worse than Goodwin Liu, Robert Chatigny, and Steve Six, all rolled into one.

Judge Victoria Nourse must be stopped now, and one heroic Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI) has already promised to filibuster her nomination, but Democrats are still pushing for a vote in the Senate Judiciary Committee to forward her nomination to the full Senate. According to JAG, Nourse is bad for several reasons: Here are just a few…

1) Nourse – An Advocate for "New Legal Realism" – is Critically Opposed to "Textualism" and "Strict Constructionism." Nourse believes that there are two primary camps of judicial thought: formalists (textualists) and the Globalist philosophy of "new legal realists." As a ‘new’ legal realist, Nourse is opposed to the textualists views of Supreme Court Justice Antonino Scalia or any other freedom loving constitutionalist American ...She ‘criticizes’ those nasty textualists who "...contend that judges should be restrained from engaging in politicized 'lawmaking' by standing closely to the text." [The whole point of a non-political, non legislative court system]

2) Nourse Praises the Results-Based "Radical Theory of Judging" that departs from the text of the law and Reaches Decisions Based on Facts Rather Than Law. [A common member of a jury can do that, but a Judge is required by law to judge according to the law. If that were not true we would all be jugged according to a different set of rules.] Nourse writes: "The old legal realists were enormously successful in positing a radical theory of judging as a challenge to formalist [textualist] legal reasoning. This theory's core claim is that [legal] doctrine alone cannot determine outcomes and that judges respond (and should respond) to facts and factual contexts. So, too, each of the varieties of new legal realism builds from this core claim."

3) Nourse Opposes the Individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms. In her law review article on so-called "New Legal Realism," Nourse is highly critical of the Supreme Court's ruling in the Washington D.C. case Heller that upheld the Second Amendment's textual grant of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms." Contradicting the text of the Second Amendment, Nourse asserts that the Heller Court found "new rights, such as the right to bear arms." [Interesting, didn't we have the right to bear arms long ago? When did that 'new' right suddenly appear? Does this lady even have any knowledge of American political history or Constitutional law?]

4) Nourse Errantly Argues That Judges Can Amend the Text of the Constitution Acting As Their Own Mini "Constitutional Convention,” bypassing the congress the states and the people. In an hour long video-taped speech at Emory University (watch video here), Nourse addresses what she calls the problem of "the difficulty of a constitutional text that stays the same and a world that changes." She explains how the constitution can be amended outside of the "arduous" means provided in the constitution: [She believes that if the world becomes criminal and immoral, that the law should change to accommodate it.]

Nourse states: "… the constitution changes as the people who constitute the nation change – as they participate and take control of their government – as they re-constitute themselves." [spoken like an advocate of a true democracy, a government ruled by the majority(mob rule) rather than the rule of law.] She goes on to say: "The separation of powers has always been since our founding – the means by which the Constitution may change [re-written by judges] in practice legitimately short of the far more arduous and almost impossible amendment process [as provided at Article V of the text of the Constitution]...When the people converge through the means of the separation of powers over a long period of time a constitutional convention arises. These constitutional conventions…are embodied not in formal amendments but in what Yale's Bill Eskridge has called small "c" constitutionalism [including] court rulings…which re-constitute the people and their image of themselves. This kind of small "c" constitutional change is as important, indeed, sometimes more important than the more traditional kinds of change through the constitutional amendment process.” [This statement by Nourse screams of the ignorance of history and of Constitutional law and is the embodiment of perverted indoctrination.]

5) Nourse's advocacy in favor of judicial usurpation of legislative power – even usurpation of constitutional power – is anti-constitutional and anti-American. Her view makes a mockery of the constitution and would grant as few as five judges the ability to amend the constitution according to their own political views. [in other words an unfettered dictatorial power ruled from the bench. Yeah I’m sure this is what the framers had in mind…]

6) Nourse is Critical of Constitutional Textualism; She Makes the Claim That the Constitution's Grants of Power "Governs No One." [Nourse is fundamentally wrong, the purpose of the U.S. Constitution is to govern the U.S. Government. (A government of law)]

Nourse goes so far as to argue that to remove the "vesting clauses" of the Constitution which divide power between the executive, legislative, and judicial branch would have no impact on the meaning of the Constitution. Nourse specifically references the Article I, Section 1 requirement that "All legislative Power herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States" and argues that [t]hese descriptive words, assumed to be the most important and naturalized text in our Constitution, do nothing in and of themselves. They govern no one." Per Nourse, if that the exclusive grant of legislative power to Congress "govern[s] no one" then judges are free to legislate their own political policy preferences and agendas from the bench.

7) Nourse Advocates that International and Foreign Law Should Supersede the Constitution, in a "New Legal Realism" in Which "The Power of Globalization on All of Our Lives is Recognized." Nourse writes: "State law, including the frame of state constitutional law, is increasingly rivaled by law otherwise spatially extended, including sub-state law, regional supranational law, transnational domain-specific private ordering, hybrid public-private ordering and, increasingly, new forms of a global legal regime that neither claim universality nor obviously emanate from nor respect the aggregative sovereign will.” [I just can’t help but wonder of this means she advocates that Islamic Sharia Law should take precedent over U.S. Constitutional law as part of the aggregative sovereign will of the nonassimilated Muslim people.]

8) Nourse also Discounts The Existence and Influence of Natural Law and Fundamental Rights. The United States Declaration of Independence explicitly states that we have been "endowed by Our creator with certain unalienable rights," yet Victoria Nourse has stated that " the New Legal Realism philosophy, Real life, and reading hundreds of cases, have taught me that the natural in the law is quite unnatural, quite 'made' in the image of human relations, and that this is not simply a theoretical trope, that this 'madeness' is quite real and demonstrable.” [I guess this should be expected coming from a brainwashed Godless individual]

9) Victoria Nourse Describes Herself as a Zealot and a Feminist. Nourse calls herself an "accidental feminist," and looks up to feminist extremist such as Martha Fineman as role models. Fineman believes that caregiving and emotional nurturing are "gendered" activities that cause women to be undervalued. Nourse co-authored the book "Cases and Materials on Feminist Jurisprudence: Taking Women Seriously" and numerous other articles on the same subject.

THE BOTTOM LINE: Well…what can one expect from a brainwashed feminist man hater and control freak. She is obviously someone of considerable intelligence. But also incapable of original thought. She relies strictly on her perverted indoctrination masqueraded as higher education. Victoria Nourse is a graduate of U.C. Berkeley law school founded in 1912.

As is the fate of many universities, sometime between 1912 and today as the rest of U.C. Berkeley, it has become a Liberal academic institution of extreme left wing indoctrination. A far cry from the University of higher learning that it once was, this has obviously created the Marxist foundation that Victoria F Nourse subscribes to.

It seems that if our Muslim Communist president Barack Hussein Obama has his way this unelected Marxist legislator from the bench will be the next judicial appointee.

Another quiet step toward Globalism and oppressive Dictatorship.

You might want to speak up to your representatives and tell them that you have become quite comfortable with freedom and would like your children to experience a little of it as well.

de Andréa

No comments: