The Supreme Court Watch - John Roberts

A Public Service of
450 Maple Avenue East, Vienna, Virginia 22180

Roy Moore for Supreme Court

Supreme Court

The Supreme Court Watch Page One
The Supreme Court Watch Page Two
Supreme Court Roll Call Votes
Roy Moore Petition
Howard Phillips' Statement 7/05 Release 10/04
Roy Moore 7/05
Howard Phillips' Testimony Against Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Howard Phillips' Testimony Against David Souter

TCC Supreme Court
News Coverage

 CNS News July 11, 2005
WorldNetDaily July 6, 2005
Washington Post July 14, 2005
Tuscaloosa News July 14, 2005
Birmingham News July 14, 2005
NewsMax Article on Howard Phillips' Opposition to Souter

Please Donate Now.

To help get a better Supreme Court and to support our many important projects with an urgent donation, please call us at 703-938-9626 or go to our secure credit card page.


"Harriet Miers is loyal to Bush's liberal agenda"
Howard Phillips, October, 2005

"Roberts for Rehnquist is a net loss."
"There is reason to conclude that, to put it mildly, Roberts will be less dependable than was Rehnquist on the important issues of abortion and sodomy."
Howard Phillips' remarks concerning John Roberts, September, 2005

"A vote to confirm Mrs. Ginsburg becomes a vote to empower a permanent one-woman Constitutional Convention which never goes out of session."
Howard Phillips before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, July 21, 1993

David Souter (as I predicted in testifying against his confirmation) is consistently wrong. Souter was passed off to conservatives during the first Bush Administration as a ‘stealth candidate’ who had no record, but was nonetheless on our side.
Howard Phillips' remarks about Justice Souter, 2003

"One moment of truth for Mr. Souter came in February 1973, when, as a member of the board of trustees of Concord Hospital, he participated in a unanimous decision that abortions be performed at that hospital."
Howard Phillips before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, September 19, 1990

"As an Arizona State Senator, she voted twice for abortion on demand through the ninth month of pregnancy; she co-sponsored a proposal to permit abortion without parental consent; she promoted ERA; she opposed the Human Life Amendment; and she failed to oppose abortions at a taxpayer-funded facility."
Howard Phillips' remarks concerning Sandra Day O'Connor, 1981

This Page--Sotomayor
Page for Alito - Miers - Roberts
Page for Earlier Supreme Court Items

Supreme Court Nominee Sonia Sotomayor

Visit our newest website: BlockSonia.org

Judicial Activist Sotomayor--her own words:

"Court of appeals is where policy is made. And I know – and I know this is on tape and I should never say that because we don't make law, I know. (laughs) OK, I know. I'm not promoting it, and I'm not advocating it, I'm – you know. OK. (giggles, audience laughs) Having said that, the court of appeals is where, before the Supreme Court makes the final decision, the law is percolating – its interpretation, its application." WorldNetDaily Duke University School of Law, 2005

"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."  Sotomayor at the Berkeley School of Law, 2001

“I do not disclaim in this thesis that I do not reflect my own bias toward independence for Puerto Rico.” Sotomayor's 1976 thesis

Obama on Judicial Selection: "We need somebody who’s got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it’s like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it’s like to be poor, or African American, or gay, or disabled, or old. And that’s the criteria by which I’m going to be selecting my judges." (nothing about understanding the intent of the Constitution) Obama's speech to Planned Parenthood, 2007


  • Please call your Senators at 202-224-3121 and email them in opposition to Sotomayor's nomination.

  • Call talk shows to encourage others to call the Senate in opposition to Sotomayor.

  • Write a letter to the editor listing one or more reasons she is unqualified.

  • Call the RNC (202-863-8500) and DNC (202-863-8000), tell them that the Senators they fund must follow your views.

  • Ask and email your friends to help stop the nomination.

  • Please make a donation now to help.


For further information, contact:
Charles Orndorff, 703-938-9626


Howard Phillips, Chairman of The Conservative Caucus, has called upon members of the Senate Judiciary Committee to probe Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor regarding the following questions:

1. What relation, in your view, does the Declaration of Independence bear to the Constitution of the United States?

2. Do you agree with the statement in the Declaration that "all Men…are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights"?

3. The Preamble of the Constitution asserts that "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." Do you agree that "We the People" are the source of authority for the Constitution and everything in it?

4. How do you interpret the term "promote the general Welfare"?

5. Article I, Section 1 says "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States". Do you believe that legislative powers may be exercised by entities other than the Congress? What about the Federal Reserve? May it exercise legislative powers? What about regulatory agencies? What about the Civil Service? What about Presidential Executive Orders? What about international organizations such as the World Trade Organization (WTO)? What about NAFTA? What about the Judiciary?

6. In the event of a national calamity, it is possible that many members of Congress may suffer death or disability. Article I, Section 5 asserts that "a Majority of each [House] shall constitute a Quorum to do Business". In your view, how ought such a majority be defined? Would it be a majority of the living? A majority of those physically and mentally capable? What would it be?

7. Do you attach any religious significance to the language in Article I, Section 7 which, in defining the time available to the President to consider whether he shall veto a piece of legislation which has arrived on his desk, permits him "ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him". Is there a Christian premise to this language in the Constitution?

8. Article I, Section 8 says "The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States". Do you believe that the power of Congress, as stipulated, is limited to those matters set forth in Article I, Section 8?

9. Article I, Section 8 says "Congress shall have Power…To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations". Did Congress violate this provision in accepting U.S. participation in the WTO, in NAFTA, and in CAFTA?

10. Article I, Section 8 says "Congress shall have Power…To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures". Does this not imply that our money shall be of fixed value, not subject to regulation by an entity such as the Federal Reserve?

11. Article I, Section 8 says "Congress shall have Power…To declare War". To what extent can the President intrude on this authority?

12. Article I, Section 8 says "Congress shall have Power…To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions". What is your understanding of the term "the Militia"?

13. Article I, Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution asserts that no State shall "make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts". How do you interpret this requirement and its current application?

14. Article II, Section 1 sets forth the oath to be taken by the President: "Before he enter on the Execution of his Office …I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.’ " In your opinion, has President Bush faithfully, consistently, and without exception defended the Constitution of the United States?

15. Article II, Section 2 states that the President "shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur". Do you believe that U.S. participation in NAFTA and the World Trade Organization should have required, as treaties, a two thirds vote of the Senators present and voting?

16. Do you regard as valid Executive Agreements which may be entered into by the President of the United States?

17. Article III, Section 1 says "The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour". (a) How do you define "good behaviour"? (b) If a judge is found to have violated standards of "good behaviour", may such a judge be removed from office by simple majority vote of the Senate, which confirmed his appointment to office?

18. Article III, Section 2 says "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;… —between Citizens of different States, —between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States…. In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make." What restrictions, if any, do you think are permissible on the authority of Congress to limit the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court?

19. Article III, Section 2 stipulates that "The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment; shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed." The U.N.’s proposed International Criminal Court (ICC) treaty seems to be in clear violation of these provisions. Do you agree that it would be un-Constitutional for the Senate to ratify the International Criminal Court (ICC) treaty?

20. Article IV, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution says "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State; And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof." In your opinion, does this language require other states to recognize the Massachusetts "same sex" marriage procedures?

21. Article IV, Section 4 says "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion". In your view, what is the Federal government required to do in response to the invasion of illegal aliens which has particularly affected such states as California, Arizona, and Texas, among others?

22. Article VI says "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land". In your view, does this require that treaties ratified by the U.S. Senate are the "supreme Law of the Land", even when such treaties are in conflict with provisions of the U.S. Constitution?

23. The First Amendment to the Constitution stipulates that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". (a) Do you agree that this language was included in the Constitution to prevent any interference by the Federal government in the establishments of religion which existed by authority of the legislatures of the several states which had joined in ratifying the Constitution? (b) In your view, are different interpretations of this clause valid for purposes of Constitutional interpretation?

24. The Second Amendment says "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Do you believe that in light of this language any or all of Federally enacted gun control laws are Constitutionally valid?

25. According to the Fourth Amendment, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." (a) Do you believe that any branch of the Federal government has the authority to violate the Fourth Amendment for any reason whatsoever? (b) Do you believe that the requirements of the Fourth Amendment have ever been violated by the Federal government, if so, when, by whom, and in what circumstances?

26. The Fifth Amendment says that "nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb". Was not this provision set aside in the Rodney King case when law enforcement personnel were prosecuted for the same alleged offense under both state and Federal law?

27. The Sixth Amendment requires that "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed". (a) How do you interpret the term "speedy"? (b) When, in accordance with your definition, this provision is violated, what should be the remedy?

28. The Eighth Amendment says that "cruel and unusual punishments" may not be inflicted. How would you define a cruel and unusual punishment?

29. The Tenth Amendment says that "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." (a) When powers which Constitutionally ought be reserved to the states are usurped by the Federal government, what remedy is available to states thus aggrieved? (b) Is nullification a valid response? (c) Is interposition an appropriate response?

30. The Thirteenth Amendment says that "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction." In your view, does adherence to this amendment preclude the possibility of a military draft?

31. Many people have questioned the inclusion of the Fourteenth Amendment in the U.S. Constitution, inasmuch as part of a conditional readmission to the Union, certain southern states were required to ratify this amendment. In some cases, ratification was enforced at the point of a gun by occupying military troops. (a) Do you think the Fourteenth Amendment was properly ratified? (b) If not, do you believe it should be enforced?

32. The Fourteenth Amendment says that no state may "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law". (a) In your view, at what point does the unborn child qualify for consideration as a person? (b) At such point, does it become unconstitutional to deprive any such person of life without such person having been duly convicted of a crime by a jury of his or her peers?

33. The Fourteenth Amendment also says that no person shall be denied "the equal protection of the laws". In your view, does this make affirmative action laws unconstitutional?

34. The Sixteenth Amendment says that "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration." How do you define the term "incomes"?

35. The Nineteenth Amendment says "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex". Does this use of the word "sex" refer exclusively to gender, or can it be construed to cover sexual activity?

36. The XXVII Amendment to the Constitution says "No Law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened." This language seems to preclude members of Congress from accepting pay increases recommended by commissions or operating in reliance on changes in the cost of living.

What is your view?



For further information, contact:
Charles Orndorff, 703-938-9626


Bob Renaud, a member of the Board of Directors of The Conservative Caucus, has issued the following analysis of President Barack Obama’s nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court:

"President Barack Obama was just past his first ‘100 days in office’ when David Souter’s retirement gave him the opportunity to submit his first Supreme Court nominee to Congress. He had been planning for this moment. During his campaign for the presidency, Obama explained what he would look for in a nominee to the high court:

" ‘We need somebody who’s got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it’s like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it’s like to be poor, or African American, or gay, or disabled, or old. And that’s the criteria by which I’m going to be selecting my judges.’[1]

"President Obama reiterated his commitment to ‘empathy’ last week when he commented on Justice Souter’s resignation. He promised to seek someone ‘who understands that justice isn’t about some abstract legal theory or footnote in a casebook.’ Apparently, to President Obama, a basic understanding of the plain text of the Constitution is now ‘abstract legal theory.’ But empathy, he says, will produce justice.

"Once again, President Obama has demonstrated that the ‘change we can believe in’ is not the change we need in this country. What we need is a change towards constitutional and biblical fidelity.

"Writing in 1833 in his famous Commentaries on the Constitution, Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story explained that empathy is not the same as justice. Justice must be ‘freely, fully, and impartially administered.’ Without impartial justice, ‘neither our persons, nor our rights, nor our property, can be protected. And if these, or either of them, are regulated by no certain laws, and are subject to no certain principles, and are held by no certain tenure, and are redressed, when violated, by no certain remedies, society fails of all its value; and men may as well return to a state of savage and barbarous independence.’[2]

"By seeking to nominate to the high court, judges who ‘got the heart, the empathy’ — as opposed to judges who are faithful to the law of the land — we are heading toward that ‘state of savage and barbarous independence’ that Justice Story warned about. That was two centuries ago. Justice Story wasn’t the first.

"Writing 3,500 years ago in the book of Leviticus, the ultimate Law-giver explained the proper role of judges:

" ‘Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment: thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor honor the person of the mighty: but in righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbour’ (Leviticus 19:15).

"In this text of Scripture, there is no reference to how judges feel about a matter, or how judges should ‘empathize’ with the parties to the case, or even how judges should use their own ethnic background to decide the matter before the bar. The command is to ‘not respect the person of the poor, nor honor the person of the mighty.’ Not feel their pain!

"Contrary to what the ACLU or even the president himself might want, our legal system has codified this biblical command not to respect either the ‘poor’ or the ‘mighty’ in our own republic. The United States Code prescribes the oath that all federal justices or judges are to swear or affirm before performing their duties. The oath states:

" ‘I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as [job title] under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.[3]

"President Obama’s nominee to the Supreme Court, Judge Sonia Sotomayor, was picked for her empathy rather than her impartiality. In fact, Judge Sotomayor has a record of showing partiality both in her written opinions and as well as outside the courtroom.

"In a 2001 speech at the University of California at Berkeley, Judge Sotomayor said that the ethnicity and sex of a judge ‘may and will make a difference in our judging.’ She went on to declare that ‘I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.’

"Fast forward to 2008, where we see how Judge Sotomayor applies her judicial philosophy of ‘empathy’ in the case of Ricci v. DeStefano (now before the U.S. Supreme Court). In that case, local firefighters in New Haven, Connecticut, took an examination in hopes of getting promoted. When the results came out, the majority of those who took the test and passed were ‘white.’ The town decided to disregard that exam. The firefighters who passed the test were passed up for promotion, and they sued the town for reverse discrimination. On appeal to the Second Circuit Court where Judge Sotomayor sits, Judge Sotomayor refused to examine the issues of the ‘white’ firemen and threw out the case. So much for Judge Sotomayor’s ‘empathy’ for both sides.

"And finally, one cannot forget the gaffe committed in 2005 in which Judge Sotomayor explained at a Duke Law School forum that it is at ‘the court of appeals is where policy is made.’ Isn’t that the job of the legislature? Judge Sotomayor caught her mistake and quickly said, ‘We don’t make law, I’m not promoting that, I’m not advocating that, you know.’ However, you have to ask yourself, how does an ‘extremely qualified’ judge make a mistake like that?

"Jesus Christ said that ‘out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks.’

"I think it’s clear where Judge Sotomayor’s heart is — she thinks that her job is to ‘empathize’ with the parties before her as opposed to judging ‘in righteousness . . . thy neighbour.’ And this is why she is disqualified to be our next U.S. Supreme Court justice."

1. A widely quoted 2007 speech that then Sen. Obama gave to Planned Parenthood. http://voices.washingtonpost.com/supreme-court/2009/05/obamasempathystandard_drawin.html?hpid=news-col-blog

2. http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/preambles21.html

3. Title 28 chapter 21 § 453.


Mr. Renaud is in his final year of law school at the Oak Brook School of Law in Fresno, California and is an official of Vision Forum Ministries in San Antonio, Texas.



The Conservative Caucus

450 Maple Avenue East * Vienna, Va. 22180 * 703-938-9626

Copyright © 2010 The Conservative Caucus, Inc.  All rights reserved.