Al Franken, Constitutional Scholar?
Written by Richard Viguerie on July 07, 2009, 12:54 PM
Upon joining the Senate, Al Franken (whom I know and enjoy, despite our vast ideological differences) was named to the Senate Judiciary Committee, which will conduct hearings on all of President Obama’s judicial nominees.  This gives Democrats a 13 – 7 edge over Republicans on that committee.
 
Al Franken is very intelligent, but he’s no constitutional scholar.
 
So what are this freshman senator’s qualifications for such a vaunted committee assignment?
 
He’s an intense ideologue.
 
This demonstrates the seriousness of the Democrats’ political agenda on judicial appointments.  President Obama and the Democrats want judges who will work outside the democratic process to change laws and constitutional principles.
 
Democrats want to radically transform America away from democratic accountability to control by the political establishment.  They have already rushed through major legislation into law before people had a chance to read it -- and object -- and now they want leftist judges who will give laws the most expansive reading in favor of the political establishment, use foreign law to interpret our Constitution, and essentially undo what our Founders created.
 
Senate Republicans need to clue in and get serious about fighting President Obama’s judicial nominees, starting with Sonia Sotomayor, and start using the judicial confirmation process to explain the role of judges and why judges cannot make law.
 
They need to begin with slowing down the process until after the congressional August recess, so Americans can learn more about who will be appointed to our 'third branch' of government.
 
If Republicans care about ever regaining a majority in Congress, they will use the judicial confirmation process to explain that what President Obama and the Democrats are trying to do is not merely bad policy, but dangerous to our freedoms.

Search

Blog Comments

Patrick
He is not be a constitutional scholar and he is an intense ideologue. He also beat our guy.
Jim
We will never know if he really "beat our guy," and that goes for the entire election. Between ACORN and the illegal's voting, "our guy" may never win again. The Republicans don't know how to win elections in the current political world. We need a new energized party -- maybe the TEA Party or the 912 Party or ???? If something isn't done soon, we will all belong to the American Socialist State of America.
George
If the Republicans -8 won't help, maybe the Dems who didn't vote for Waxman Markey bill will help. The Blue Dogs.
Bryan
We don't need Constitutional scholars on the Senate Judiciary committee. Not when we have the great Constitutional scholar, Barack Obama, as our President. I'm sure that Pres. Obama has a constitution at least once in his life. It would have been nice if it had been our Constitution though.
steve youhanaie
Was he "our guy?" "Our guy" was a big government Republican, supporting the socialist policies of the 43rd President. When we don't stand for less governmental spending, we stand for nothing. "Our guy" stood for nothing. The Republican Party spent its' way to oblivion. Even my less conservative (conservative leaners) friends admit that, to me. We deserve Franken, because we let him in. He didn't kick the door down.
Tyranny Lives
The Chicago corruption squads march on.
JMac
Oh well. What's one more foul-mouthed clown in Congress? Scholar enough?
barbara
What a JOKE!!!Oh well---Mister? dumb! dumb! Joining all the Dumb.dumb's in Office. I would vote for DOG CATCHER first!!!!
Mark Amagi
I think Al Franken is about the angriest, most hateful person in American politics. It doesn't say much for Minnesota or America that he now represents them in the Senate. Like his bossman Obama, he either doesn't have a clue about Constitutional interpretation, or if he does, he's actually planning to undermine the very document he was sworn to uphold.
Jeffersonish
Some notes/corrections -- my comments or changes in parentheses: This gives Democrats a 13 – 7 edge over Republicans on that committee. (Which is roughly the same as their representation in Congress) President Obama and [the Democrats](strike and replace with "most of Congress") want judges who will work outside the democratic process* to change laws and constitutional principles. (We don't change laws or constitutional principles democratically -- we have a representative republic. Any constitutional scholar would know that. Besides democracy ain't so grand -- It is two wolf and a sheep deciding what's for dinner.).. So reworded to be more correct, "President Obama and over 99% of Congress want judges who will work outside the confines of the Constitution as it was intended to interpret said Constitution to favor bigger government and less liberty." Democrats want to radically transform America away from democratic accountability to control by the political establishment. (Too late. America has already been radically transformed by both Democrats and Republicans to grow government for the favorite tax siphons of their choice on the backs of the American people.) They (Dems and Reps) have --already--STRIKE-- rushed through major legislation into law before people had a chance to read it -- and object (for many decades now -- check out Downsize DC's Read the Bills Act) and now they want leftist (and right wing) judges who will give laws the most expansive reading in favor of the political establishment, use foreign law to interpret our Constitution (This is a well-established legal principle wherein the judiciary may consult other jurisdictions when there is no precedent under which to apply the doctrine of stare decisis. The external jurisdiction -- in this case a foreign country's law -- is consulted for guidance but is in now way binding. It would be the same as if a California court consulted Florida law because there was no California precedent.) and essentially undo what our Founders created. (If I thought anybody but Ron Paul wanted to take us back to what the Founders intended, I would vote for them in a second. The interstate commerce clause needs to be returned to being applied to actual commerce instead of things that remotely affect commerce -- See SCOTUS cases like Wickard, Atlanta Star Hotel (if memory serves) and more recently, Gonzales v. Raich. Almost every amendment in the Bill of Rights for that matter needs to be restored. I think the 3rd may be the only one still intact and even that is violated in spirit since he house the military with money taken through the threat of force from private citizens.) Senate Republicans need to clue in and get serious about fighting President Obama’s judicial nominees, starting with Sonia Sotomayor, and start using the judicial confirmation process to explain the role of judges and why judges cannot make law. (What we really need is some new amendments to the constitution undoing horrible precedents such as the aforementioned Wickard or to define the privileges in the 14th amendment to include all of the Bill of Rights, habeas corpus, etc.) They need to begin with slowing down the process until after the congressional August recess, so Americans can learn more about who will be appointed to our 'third branch' of government. (Why? Congress doesn't listen to the American people anyway. Otherwise marijuana would be legal at the federal level.) If Republicans care about ever regaining a majority in Congress, they will use the judicial confirmation process to explain that what President Obama and the Democrats are trying to do is not merely bad policy, but dangerous to our freedoms. (Where were you when George Bush was doing things dangerous to our freedoms such as unwarranted wiretaps, USA Patriot Act, Military Commissions Act, and getting us involved in a war without having war declared first? huh?) Basically Richard, I'm not sure how I started getting your emails, but I like them because they keep me informed about what a certain segment of the population is reading and thinking. Republicans aren't any more interested in freedom and liberty than the Democrats -- they just have some different special interest groups (mostly they overlap though.) Your reasoning in this piece like most I bother to read is sloppy and deals in broad generalizations meant to prod people emotionally with some buzz words. It's a shame, because you seem to have a lot of time to write this stuff. Why not try and write about 10% of the volume, but with 10x the research and discipline?
Jeffersonish
Sorry about the formatting... The line breaks I typed didn't show up.
z
Published in the Wall Street Journal on 2 July 2009 in the Review and Outlook Section: "The Abesentee Senator, Franken Wins by Changing the Rules" The Minnesota Supreme Court yesterday declared Democrat Al Franken the winner of last year's disputed Senate race, and Republican incumbent Norm Coleman's gracious concession at least spares the state any further legal combat. The unfortunate lesson is that you don't need to win the vote on Election Day as long as your lawyers are creative enough to have enough new or disqualified ballots counted after the fact. Mr. Franken trailed Mr. Coleman by 725 votes after the initial count on election night, and 215 after the first canvass. The Democrat's strategy from the start was to manipulate the recount in a way that would discover votes that could add to his total. The Franken legal team swarmed the recount, aggressively demanding that votes that had been disqualified be added to his count, while others be denied for Mr. Coleman. But the team's real goldmine were absentee ballots, thousands of which the Franken team claimed had been mistakenly rejected. While Mr. Coleman's lawyers demanded a uniform standard for how counties should re-evaluate these rejected ballots, the Franken team ginned up an additional 1,350 absentees from Franken-leaning counties. By the time this treasure hunt ended, Mr. Franken was 312 votes up, and Mr. Coleman was left to file legal briefs. What Mr. Franken understood was that courts would later be loathe to overrule decisions made by the canvassing board, however arbitrary those decisions were. He was right. The three-judge panel overseeing the Coleman legal challenge, and the Supreme Court that reviewed the panel's findings, in essence found that Mr. Coleman hadn't demonstrated a willful or malicious attempt on behalf of officials to deny him the election. And so they refused to reopen what had become a forbidding tangle of irregularities. Mr. Coleman didn't lose the election. He lost the fight to stop the state canvassing board from changing the vote-counting rules after the fact. This is now the second time Republicans have been beaten in this kind of legal street fight. In 2004, Dino Rossi was ahead in the election-night count for Washington Governor against Democrat Christine Gregoire. Ms. Gregoire's team demanded the right to rifle through a list of provisional votes that hadn't been counted, setting off a hunt for "new" Gregoire votes. By the third recount, she'd discovered enough to win. This was the model for the Franken team. Mr. Franken now goes to the Senate having effectively stolen an election. If the GOP hopes to avoid repeats, it should learn from Minnesota that modern elections don't end when voters cast their ballots. They only end after the lawyers count them. Printed in The Wall Street Journal, page A11
Robert Founder
WELL AT LAST: AT LONG LAST, THE COMMENTERS ON THIS BLOG SEEM TO FINALLY BE SOMEHOW GETTING THE MESSAGE THAT I HAVE BEEN PREACHING TO RICHARD FOR WEEKS NOW..... That Richard is off base, and very poorly advised, if he is advised at all. If he is not being advised, he needs to get some good advice before he becomes even more irrelevant than he already is.... I have offered to give him advice and have been ignominiously ignored. Maybe now is the time to call me in and, Richard, let's talk about a real strategy ala www.ConservativeVictoryPlan.WordPress.Com and www.Precinct.Weebly.com .... This latest piece on this blog about that ridiculous excuse for a human being Al Franken takes the cake.... Richard's bald statement says it all: "The Al Franken that I have known and enjoyed". This statement is by itself, disgusting.... Anyone who could make that kind of statement is no Conservative of any sort.... I too have seen Al Franken around for years, but I hated his guts for every one of those years. He has always been an evil, America hating, White people hating slime-bag, and anyone who has trouble believing that, and saying that, has no business even pretending to be a leader in the Conservative movement. Al Franken is a lowlife bum, and is the bum who wrote the Democrat loving, Republican hating book "Rush Limbaugh Is A Big Fat Liar." I find Richard to be coming off as just another RINO under the skin. He wants to be loved by people like Steve Forbes and such types and doesn't care spit about the rest of us. I hope I am wrong, and wait to be shown that I am not right. You can't be respected and tolerated by the elites and be a Conservative Leader. Reagan and Goldwater were both spit on by the elites in both parties. I find no one spitting on Richard except me. A democrat would read his blogs and just say "ho hum, this guy is no threat to us." It is Sarah that they hate, and Richard is no Sarah. He is the typical mild mannered Republican that Democrat just kick in the teeth and move on stepping over the dead bodies. His rhetoric is tepid, and his ideas are stale. We have to organize the Precincts, and create a broad and disciplined front if we are to stand any chance at all of saving our Country. It can't be done from to top down, even a military coup required grass roots support. But first and foremost we need a PLAN, something Richard has no understanding of the need for at all, and something that 5000 other Conservative Organizations in this Country never heard of. RR had a plan, and we see the results. It wasn't the best plan, BUT it was a plan, and Gingrich had a Contract with America Plan, and again, it wasn't the best plan in the world, BUT IT WAS A PLAN.... (Mr G. has NO plan now, which is all the difference, and why he is no good as a leader now either. And we don't need any "Constitutional Lawyers" on the Supreme Court either, we need Conservative Believers on the Supreme Court, ideologues in fact. After all Obama is a pedigreed "Constitutional Lawyer." If you want one of those, put him on the Court, or one of his friends would do. The problem with Sotomayor is not that she is not a "Constitutional Lawyer," but that she is a fire breathing, America hating, White hating, and Man hating, Racist street fighter punk. Republicans are a bunch of sissies afraid of their own shadow with only half the balls of Sotomayor.... That is what is wrong with our cause. Franken won because a near dead Republican Party, led by a near dead Republican McCain, wouldn't put up a fight for Minnesota, and we had no ACORN to steal votes for US, plus we had a silly liberal-moderate wimp in the form of Norm (please step on me) Coleman. Also we had a double damnable Third Party that split our vote. Third Party people should all become Democrats and they would harm us less. Third Parties are a curse of God straight from hell against Republicans. Anyone who advocates on behalf of a Third Party is far worse than any Democrat ever could be. I personally can't stand Third Party Trash, especially Libertarians. It is true, "Republicans don't know how to win elections in the current political world." Oh, how true that is. BUT, we don't need another party, we need to TAKE OVER and energize the Party we have. By take over, I mean take over at the Precinct level in a few bloody brawls. That is the only level that counts. We need some hair pulling scratching, punching fights to throw out the old guard in most all our Counties and Precincts. We need to build a political machine second to none, and it ain't that pretty, and one that knows how to kick below the belt, and fight without restraints. If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. As Margaret Thatcher said, "First we win the argument, then we win everything else." Richard is NOT even beginning to start winning the Argument for us. Ann Coulter and Rush are far better leaders than Richard and his friend Forbes et al. We will never ever win as long as our "leaders" keep pushing people like me out of the way, so they can sell us out, to advance their own ego and their own money purposes. Well, I can go on, but at last I think the other Commenters on this blog are beginning to do a good job. Write me all you radical rebels... RobertFounder@Gmail.Com
Robert Founder
In politics, "graciousness," as disgustingly shown by Norm Coleman's "gracious" concession, loses big time. Anyone who is "gracious" in politics has a suicide complex.... Nixon's "gracious" concession to that vote stealer, ballot box stuffer, JFK, in 1960, still damages the Republican party and our morale. He should have challenged the election results, and called Kennedy and Johnson the Mafia thugs they really were... We don't need any "gracious" people leading us, we need pit bulls leading us. Goldwater was such a pit bull, and he gave us RR as a result. Gingrich in the House was a pit bull at that time, (but not now) and he gave us control of both houses and the White House with the election of Bush... You can't win without grit, and graciousness is the exact opposite of grit. Let the "gracious" people all go and join the Democrat Party and ruin that party, and leave us pit bulls to our own devices. Then we'll see... RobertFounder@Gmail.Com ..... Yes, we need to be cunning and careful, but we must always carry, and be willing to use, a big stick. We can pretend "graciousness" as long as it is pretend only, but we must never think graciously about our enemies.
14 Found

New Comment




simple_captcha.jpg
(type the code from the image)