Three Questions I Would Ask Alito

Judge Samuel Alito’s confirmation hearings, I believe, are being used by Democratic senators to try and instill in Judge Alito a willingness to turn constitutional interpretation into activist distortion, which, of course, Democrats support. I do not believe it will work in Alito’s case.

Alito has been saying that “no one is above the law.” He has stated that not even the Supreme Court justices should replace the meaning of the Constitution with their own desires or beliefs.

My first question for Judge Alito would be: “I would like to know at what point does constitutional interpretation become distortion and what can and should be done about it?”
Democratic senators are asking Alito partisan-driven ripping questions along their perforated party lines in order to obviously try to discredit him. Not a chance of that happening as far as I see.
Democrats are also evidently seeking Alito’s support for their current judicially implemented, unconstitutional social-engineering policies, all across America. It worked well on the stealth candidate David Souter, who was Alito’s superior in the court system. This “liberal” social-engineering policy is clearly imposed and promulgated by the activist judiciary. It has not yet been proven scientifically to be better than the social policies promulgated by the Constitution. In fact, the constitutional driven America is the best country in world. No one can point to nation that is better.
So, why are the activist judges doing this; for it appears that only the Democratic Politicians benefit?

As far as I am concerned the issue of interpretation becoming distortion is well settled. It is occurring here and now. But then again, I am not Sam Alito and he may have greater insight into the matter.

Here’s question No. 2: Should there be Congressional hearings for judicially injured Americans?
Here is what the Constitution says about judges in Article III: “The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behavior.”
Nonetheless, no activist judge is being held responsible for anything, despite all of the negative statements about such judicial “behavior.” While it is important to have “hearings” in support of the “advice and consent” part of the Constitution regarding Supreme Court justices, it is, I believe, more important to have hearings about previously confirmed, now activist judges who have judicially injured Americans.
For example:

Although a constitutionally recognized property right has been sacrosanct for 200-plus years, since the Constitution itself was ratified by all of the states in the late 1700s, this private property right ended in 2005. The Constitution [see Amendment V] was intentionally distorted by alteration of the definitions. It was altered so that the democratically supported “liberal” bias of the judiciary could themselves aid democrats in a new form of “taxation without representation.”
So far, the distortion by five activist Supreme Court justices is a success with thousands of average Americans homes and property forfeited. While at the same time the local politicians are claiming that just compensation for the private property has been provided, it is an abject lie. If the compensation were indeed fair, no developer would be able to make any money because the profits would be paid out upfront to the party and so they would not be interested in the private property, due to the prohibitive costs. I know because I was a developer when younger.

There are now five Supreme Court justices whom I refer to as the “wolf pack,” as in the three little pigs children’s story. It is they who have removed and so rewritten the amendment protecting the private property rights of Americans. To do this takes two-thirds of the elected Congress according to the Constitution.  Effectively the “wolf pack” consisting of Justices Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsberg and Bryer are in the process of eating all the “little piggies” across America. There is no end in sight to this democratically spawned judicial activism unless and until Congress does its job and holds hearings for judicially injured Americans.

There is, notably, also the distortion of the 1st Amendment regarding religion as well as the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms. Perhaps these activist judges are not feeling well and it affects their comprehension or they are dyslectic and read everything backwards.
To this point, there is a maverick lawyer in the Boston area. His name is David Grossack of the Citizens Justice Institute. He has been trying to secure hearings before the House Judiciary Committee chaired by the Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R.-Wis.).

As I comprehend it, famous Americans including Tim McKyer, a three time Super Bowl champ, as well as other professionals including doctors, lawyers etc., have written the Judiciary Committee and have not been replied to at all.
Alito, from my observation, does not support the liberal activism of the Democrat-supported judges. That is a very good start to a remedy; the Honorable Judge Alito must be confirmed. But much more is needed and the Republicans must act not merely talk.
Finally, here’s question No. 3: Is there only one set of rights?
In the early summer of 1994 I was preparing to play at the 25th anniversary of Woodstock. At the time I composed music and wrote a song called, “One Set of Rights.” It was based upon my “umpteenth” reading of the Constitution, wherein I could only find one set of rights for all.

I, therefore, believe that the Republican senators could ask Alito: How many sets of rights are contained in the Constitution? This would bring attention to the issue of special interest groups getting special rights instead of equal rights. When one group gets special rights, enforced by activist judges, another group must suffer a deprivation of rights. That is the antithesis of judicial fairness.
Congressional hearings must be held, for the people, of the people and by the people, and I believe Judge Alito would agree if asked.
Furthermore, there is an election coming up this year. The Republicans could do worse than showing the judicially injured American people that they care.


View All