Judge John Roberts is perceived as a strict constitutional conservative and is being held up as an example of George W. Bush also being conservative. The Bush Scorecard blogs put the lie to that claim, and this one exposes Roberts as a typical Bushite phony. To praise or blast blogmaster, email

Location: Oshkosh, Wisconsin, United States

Read the rest of the profile! And check out my websites and weblogs.

Friday, May 28, 2010


If Elena Kagan is confirmed as the 112th Supreme Court Justice, it will be the first time in U.S. history that the court has been without a Protestant/Evangelical/Baptist voice.

The Court will be made up of 6 Roman Catholics and 3 Jews.

I thought the idea of having female, black, and Hispanic justices was to make it more "representative"? Is America 70% Catholic, 30% Jewish, and 0% Protestant/Baptist/Evangelical?

Tuesday, May 11, 2010


appointed a supreme court candidate who:

* Disagreed with the view that the courts should take the lead in creating a more just society (IOW, is against "judicial activism").

* Supported a ban on late-term abortions.

* Believed the death penalty could be broadened by States.

* Was against warrantless wiretaps on Americans.

* Thought the Heller case that struck down Washington D.C.'s anti-gun laws showed that the 2nd Amendment provided "strong ... protection".

Why, every conservative Republican would've been giddy and trumpeted these positions, ignoring any of the nominee's liberal leanings. In fact, if you read this blog, you'll see that's exactly what they did in the cases of Alito and Roberts.

However, the above are the positions of Barack Obama's nominee, Elena Kagen, according to McClatchy News Services NY Times article. Based on the above she might be more conservative than the Republican justice she will be replacing, John Paul Stevens.

Tuesday, June 09, 2009



A Republican Supreme Court Gave America Abortion, Sodomy, And Pornography

By Pastor Matt Trewhella The Covenant News ~ June 09, 2009

Obama has nominated a Supreme Court justice. She will in all likelihood turn out to be pro-abortion and pro-homosexual. Obama is rabidly pro-abortion and pro-homosexual, and birds of a feather flock together.

If you were one of those people who could not bring yourself to vote for the lesser-of-two-evils (have you noticed that the lesser-evil gets more evil every four years?) this past November, you are probably hearing from some of your friends right about now saying – "See, I told you to vote for McCain just so Obama couldn't appoint the next Supreme Court justice."

You may be feeling bad or even pained in your conscience about this – but don't. Historical fact reveals that you would have gotten nothing different with a Republican-appointed justice. The truth is Obama's nominee has the same values as the majority of Republican-appointed Supreme Court justices over the last 40 years.

If you doubt what I am saying, just take a few moments to look at the facts.

1.) The 1973 Roe v. Wade decision was given to us a by a majority of Republican-appointed justices. Six of the seven justices which voted in support of Roe v. Wade were appointed by Republican presidents.

2.) Roe v. Wade has been upheld and legalized abortion maintained by a majority of Republican-appointed Supreme Court justices for the last 36 years. Since the Roe. v. Wade decision, Republican-appointed justices have always been in the majority by a margin of at least 7-2. Currently, 7 of the 9 justices are Republican-appointed.

3.) The 2003 Lawrence v. Texas case which decriminalized sodomy was given to us by a majority of Republican-appointed justices. Four of the six justices which voted in support of decriminalizing sodomy were appointed by Republican presidents.

4.) Remember also, it was a Republican-appointed majority Court which banned school prayer in the 1962 Engle v. Vitale case, and which opened the floodgates of pornography in the 1973 Miller v. California case.

Every four years, Christian people in this nation are stampeded into voting for the Republican presidential candidate based on the mantra - "whoever is elected President will appoint the next Supreme Court justices!" Republicans insist that we must vote for their presidential candidate in order to insure that liberal justices are not appointed to the Supreme Court.

The historical facts however, show that their assertion is absolutely false. When you look at the facts there is not a lick of difference between Obama's nominee and what we have gotten from the Republicans for the last 40 years.

Until Christians take the Republicans to task for this, nothing will change. The Republicans find legalized abortion too politically advantageous to actually outlaw abortion. How then would they be able to keep the Christians in line?

The truth is our nation finds itself in its current state because the people have turned their backs on God and are living in rebellion to him; the pulpits are full of hirelings and whores; and American Christians have embraced a superficial, narcissistic, man-centered Christianity. No political party can remedy this situation. Only the pure preaching of God's Word calling men to repentance and faith in Christ.

Saturday, June 06, 2009



Prior appointments: Nominated by Senior President Bush to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in 1991.

TG: Oh look! She was put into the federal judiciary by Poppa George Bush! She must be a conservative, like the guy she is replacing, David Souter.

See the difference it makes when we have Republicans appointing judges rather than Democrats? Bush appointed a conservative female judge named Sonia Sotomayer. Obama is naming a liberal dyke judge named Sonia Sotomayer. We should protest Obama's liberal appointment, but support Bush's conservative appointment.

* Wrote the opinion and upheld the Mexico City Policy prohibiting federal funding of overseas abortions

* Held that a revocation of plaintiffs permit to use the town hall annex for their worship services violated the First Amendment because the policy granted the town unfettered discretion to deny applications in Amandola v. Town of Babylon.

* Held that the interest of avoiding violations of the Establishment Clause on some public properties . . . not closely associated with the seat of government did not constitute a compelling justification for content-based restrictions on expressive conduct in Flamer v. City of White Plains

TG: See there? She is at least as conservative as the guy she is replacing, David Souter.

Wednesday, January 11, 2006



The following comments offered by Samuel Alito should disqualify him from the bench:

ALITO: That's not a formality to me, that's the way in which I think a judge or a justice has to address legal issues. And I think thatis very important. And I don't know a way to answer a question about how I would decide a constitutional question that might come up inthe future, other than to say I would go through that whole process. I don't agree with the idea that the Constitution always trumps stare decisis.

SCHUMER: It doesn't always, but sometimes...

SPECTER: Let him finish his answer, Senator Schumer.

ALITO: I don't agree with the theory that the Constitution always trumps stare decisis. There would be no room for the doctrine of stare decisis in constitutional law if that were the case.

Did you all notice this? Alito said it twice, so you can't help but notice it. Alito REJECTS the idea that the Constitution always trumps stare decisis! In other words, there are times when stare decisis trumps the Constitution!

The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, not stare decisis. Therefore, Alito's comment alone disqualifies him from the Bench.

Reed R. Heustis, Jr.
Los Angeles County Central Committee
California State Central Committee
American Independent Party (California's Constitution Party)

Saturday, December 24, 2005



Alito Defended Officials From Wiretap Suits

By DONNA CASSATA, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito defended the right of government officials to order domestic wiretaps when he worked for the Reagan Justice Department, documents released Friday show.

He advocated a step by step approach to strengthening the hand of officials in a 1984 memo to the solicitor general. The strategy is similar to the one that Alito espoused for rolling back abortion rights at the margins.

The release of the memo by the National Archives comes when President Bush is under fire for secretly ordering domestic spying of suspected terrorists without a warrant.

The memo dealt with whether government officials should have blanket protection from lawsuits when authorizing wiretaps. "I do not question that the attorney general should have this immunity," Alito wrote. "But for tactical reasons, I would not raise the issue here."

Monday, December 05, 2005


According to the pro-abortion Senator Specter (whom Bush helped defeat a pro-lifer in the last election), Sam Alito took some horrible positions pertaining to the Constitution and abortion.

Alito opined that killing babies is "embedded in the culture" and so we must follow it as precedent (stare decisis). Why the pro-aborters didn't have to follow "stare decisis" when abortion was codified in 1973, was not explained.

Alito referred to a woman's "right to choose". He didn't specify WHAT women had the right to choose, but the implication was to choose to murder their babies. Of course nobody should have the "right to choose" murder.

Alito promised he would not let any potential backbone get in the way, since his personal views would not be considered if they might stop the baby-killing culture.

And to cap it off, Alito referred to the Constitution as a "living thing", rather than a static, settled document. IOW, it can evolve to be twisted to mean anything the Courts desire.

No Christian Constitutionalist has any business supporting Sam Alito for the Supreme Court.

Alito Assures Specter on Abortion Views

Sen. Specter Says Nominee Alito Assured Him He Would Not Let Personal Views Drive Rulings

By DAVID ESPO AP Special CorrespondentWASHINGTON Dec 2, 2005 —

Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito, who expressed strong opposition to abortion rights two decades ago, pledged Friday that his personal views on the subject "would not be a factor" in his rulings, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee said. Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., said Alito had told him in a private meeting that "with respect to his personal views on a woman's right to choose … that is not a matter to be considered in the deliberation on a constitutional issue of a woman's right to choose. The judicial role is entirely different."

Specter, who supports abortion rights, said he was neither satisfied nor dissatisfied with what he had heard earlier in his office, and emphasized that he would question Alito vigorously about the issue at confirmation hearings scheduled to begin Jan. 9.

Specter also said he had questioned Alito about the importance of legal precedent, known as the principle of "stare decisis. "

Judge Alito says that when a matter is embedded in the culture, it's a considerable factor in the application of stare decisis," the senator said. He added that Alito had told him that the Constitution "is a living thing in the sense that it protects rights by setting out principles to be applied in changing circumstances."