Teresa Heinz Kerry Invokes Supreme Court to Tout Husband

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

By JOE MANDAK, Associated Press Writer

HOUSTON, Pa. - Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry would appoint Supreme Court justices who would safeguard a half-century of civil rights gains, his wife said Friday.

"Fifty years after Brown v. Board of Education, we are reminded now more than ever that we need a Supreme Court to protect our hard-won victories," Teresa Heinz Kerry told the Pennsylvania State Conference of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.


"John Kerry will appoint judges that interpret our Constitution and don't go there for political reasons to divide our country," she added during a 20-minute prepared speech.


The NAACP had invited President Bush to speak at the conference as well, but he declined and did not send a surrogate, while Kerry sent his wife, said Burrell Brown, president of the state conference.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20041023/ap_on_el_pr/heinz_kerry&cid=694&ncid=2043

[KC21304]

1. Terrific ! That should be worth a few votes in PA.

What a gal. I can't wait to have her as first lady.

[olddem43]

2. That's been a Kerry talking point all year.

I heard him say something similar on April 7th at a rally here.

[SalParadise]

3. This should be something they talk about a LOT until the election.

The fact that another bush administration would most likely mean the end of Roe v. Wade needs to be put out to the voters, also.

[sonicx]

4. Supreme Court is the number one reason for any none RWer to vote for Kerry

Not that Kerry won't be a good president, but his SC will be a gift for many years after he's out of office.

[billbuckhead]

5. Philadelphia freedom. E.E, Hillary and THK on stage together

As long as Hillary vets everything. Philadelphia Freedom.

[Malva Zebrina]

6. what a woman!

Can you imagine Laura the Madame Tussaud wax, perpetually, joker smiling , stiff mannequin figure, ever addressing anything like this in such a bold manner? It will be a pleasure to have this intelligent, self assured woman as a first lady.

John Kerry said that his wife "tells the truth" and he loves her for it.

[TaleWgnDg]

7. Go, Teresa, Gooooooooooo!

. . . . . . .



.

[Tony_Illinois]

8. Supreme Court Possibilities Frightening

The possibility of Bush appointing up to 4 Supreme Court justices is chilling. They deny it, of course, but the administration goal is to pack the court with social conservatives and turn back the American cultural clock to 1950.

Most Americans, unfortunately, do not care or understand the impact that this would have on their lives. We are more concerned as a nation with the outcome of "American Idol" than the serious issues surrounding Supreme Court appointments and rulings.

The "American Constitution Society Blog" has an informative and alarming piece called "Clarence Thomas' America" that I recommend for a frightening look at what the future may be like. Here is a selection from that item:

<
"Stare decisis" is one of the most well established principles in the law. Simply put, it means that courts will not overturn established precedent without an extraordinary reason to do so. It is also a doctrine not held sacred by all nine Justices. In Justice Antonin Scalia's words, Justice Thomas "doesn't believe in stare decisis, period."

Because Justice Thomas does not feel bound by precedent, his opinions often call for substantial shifts in the law. These next two weeks, ACSBlog will explore several of these cases, explaining the history behind Thomas' disfavored doctrines, and suggesting how America would be different should Thomas' vision ever become law. We hope these pieces will be helpful in understanding the man President Bush calls a "model" Supreme Court Justice.
>

Full article found here -
http://www.acsblog.org/featured-events-359-clarence-tho...

[young_at_heart]

10. The country will never recover with Bush's choices

I think their main reason for "securing" this election is so they can gain control of the Supreme Court.

[Tony_Illinois]

11. I Agree With You...

With--God forbid--W back in office and the retention of right-wing majorities in both houses of Congress, controlling the judiciary would be the next logical step. A Supreme Court of young extreme conservatives (reactionaries) like Thomas could interpret our laws for the next 40 years.

[Laelth]

12. Scalia and Thomas are both dangerous.

Neither of them really believes in stare decisis. And the Republicans are winning the rhetorical war on this issue. They've got many doctors and the people, in general, afraid of "activist judges" who re-write the law from the bench. In fact, "textualism," a theory of interpretation that both Scalia and Thomas embrace, allows them to intentionally ignore the intent of the legislature and read the "plain text" of a statute in such a way that the statute (or the Constitution, for that matter) means whatever they want it to mean.

Darn dangerous! The thought of Shrub getting to appoint 4 Supremes should be enough to scare the pants off of anybody who's not expecting the "rapture" to come any day now. :scared:

Kerry on!

-Laelth

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

13. 1950?

Try 1900. In 1950 the Supreme Court had such liberals as William O. Douglas. It's tre Brown vs The Board of Education had not been heard yet but many of the Judges who were in the majority in that decision were already in the US Supreme Court.

[LiberalFighter]

9. NOT even a surrogate

slights the NAACP again and again and again and again

[lawladyprof]

14. SCt decisions on employment discrimination

State employees are no longer protected by the Age Discrimination in Employment Act or the Americans with Disabilities Act. Waiting in the wings whether local government employees (think teachers) are state employees for purposes of the ADEA or ADA protection.

[Ilsa]

15. The more she speaks, the more I like her.

She speaks her mind. SOmetimes, that'll get a person in trouble politically, but you can see she has an honest heart. I love her boldness.