NEW PETITION to Stop Obama’s next liberal Judge VICTORIA NOURSE, the pro-Abortion, anti-Marriage Liberal seeking promotion to 7th Circuit. Please select, sign, and WE WILL AUTO-FAX your petition to ALL 100 U.S. SENATORS (saving you hours!)
Senate Judiciary considers Pro-Abortion, Anti-Marriage Judge Today. Take action!
The Senate Judiciary Committee (SJC) will meet today Thursday to consider President Obama’s worst Judge yet, and Conservative Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI) is asking for your help to defeat Judge Victoria Nourse, who wants to re-write the Constitution.
If you have a moment, please call all 18 members of the SJC listed here, at 202-225-3121. Dial that same number 18 times, and request each Senator on the above list by name, and simply say “Please oppose and filibuster Judge Victoria Nourse for the 7th Circuit Court.”
If you don’t have time to make 18 phone calls, save time; blast-fax 100 Senators here.
Pro-life Senator Johnson opposes Judge Victoria Nourse, saying in his recent op-ed article: “Unlike Obama and the Senate Democrats, I respect the will of Wisconsin’s voters. That is why I have not submitted my blue slip to the Senate Judiciary Committee regarding the judicial nomination of…Victoria Nourse.
“Wisconsin voters also have expressed a number of concerns with Nourse’s nomination to the 7th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals. For starters, seats on the Circuit Court are allotted among the states in that circuit so there will be judges on the bench with experience actually practicing law in each state’s system. Nourse does not fit the bill.
“Nourse was not even licensed to practice law in Wisconsin until Dec. 7, 2010, almost six months after Obama first nominated her.
“Obama first nominated her on July 14, 2010, before I was even elected to the Senate. Nonetheless, the Democrat-controlled Senate Judiciary Committee never held a hearing on her nomination and Senate Democrats never attempted to schedule a vote on it.
“Many voters in Wisconsin have been asking why the Democrats chose not to advance Nourse’s nomination when they controlled a nearly filibuster-proof majority in the Senate.”
Let’s help Senator Johnson stop Victoria Nourse, whose own words prove she wants to re-write the U.S. Constitution without consent from the Congress or the States. See below.
Our friend Philip Jauregui at the conservative Judicial Action Group (JAG) alerted us to possibly the worst judicial nominee yet by President Obama: Judge Victoria Nourse seeks promotion to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, ruling over Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin. Nourse is even worse than Goodwin Liu, Robert Chatigny, and Steve Six, the 3 judges YOU STOPPED from being confirmed in the Senate with our fax petitions.
Judge Victoria Nourse must also be stopped now, and one heroic Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI) has already promised to filibuster her nomination, but Democrats are still pushing for a vote in the Senate Judiciary Committee to forward her nomination to the full Senate. According to JAG, Nourse is bad for several reasons:
1) Nourse – An Advocate for “New Legal Realism” – is Critically Opposed to “Textualism” and “Strict Constructionism.” Nourse believes that there are two primary camps of judicial thought: formalists (textualists) and “new legal realists.” As a new legal realist, Nourse is opposed to the textualists views of Justice Antonin Scalia…She criticizes textualists who “…contend that judges will be restrained from engaging in politicized ‘lawmaking’ by standing closely to the text.”
2) Nourse Praises the Results-Based “Radical Theory of Judging” That Departed From the Text of the Law and Reached Decisions Based on Facts Rather Than Law. Nourse writes: “The old legal realists were enormously successful in positing a radical theory of judging as a challenge to formalist [textualist] legal reasoning. This theory’s core claim is that [legal] doctrine alone cannot determine outcomes and that judges respond (and should respond) to facts and factual contexts. So, too, each of the varieties of new legal realism builds from this core claim.”
[Chaps comment: Nourse also believes in an evolving, “self-transcending” Constitution. Watch the scary video below…]
3) Nourse Opposes the Individual Right to Bear Arms. In her law review article on so-called “New Legal Realism,” Nourse is highly critical of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Heller that upheld the Second Amendment’s textual grant of “the right of the people to keep and bear arms.” Contradicting the text of the Second Amendment, Nourse asserts that the Heller Court found “new rights, such as the right to bear arms.” [Didn’t we have the right to bear arms long ago? When did that ‘new’ right suddenly appear?]
We need to take action. Let’s petition all 100 Senators right away…
4) Nourse Errantly Argues That Judges Can Amend the Text of the Constitution Acting As If Their Own Mini “Constitutional Convention.” In an hour long video-taped speech at Emory University (watch video here), Nourse addresses what she calls the problem of “the difficulty of a constitutional text that stays the same and a world that changes.” She explains how the constitution can be amended outside of the “arduous” means provided in the constitution:
Nourse states: “… the constitution changes as the people who constitute the nation change – as they participate and take control of their government – as they re-constitute themselves. The separation of powers has always been since our founding – the means by which the Constitution may change [re-written by judges] in practice legitimately short of the far more arduous and almost impossible amendment process [as provided at Article V of the text of the Constitution]…When the people converge through the means of the separation of powers over a long period of time a constitutional convention arises. Theseconstitutional conventions…are embodied not in formal amendments but in what Yale’s Bill Eskridge has called small “c” constitutionalism [including] court rulings…which re-constitute the people and their image of themselves. This kind of small “c” constitutional change is as important, indeed, sometimes more important than the more traditional kinds of change through the amendment process.”
5) Nourse’s advocacy in favor of judicial usurpation of legislative power – even usurpation of constitutional power – is anti-constitutional. Her view makes a mockery of the constitution and would grant as few as five judges the ability to amend the constitution according to their own political views.
6) Nourse is Critical of Constitutional Textualism; She Makes the Claim That the Constitution’s Grants of Power “Govern No One.” Nourse believes: “[t]he standard view of the Constitution – held today by most conventional constitutional law scholars, I would add – is a weak, or qualified, version of the old positivist position. The idea is that the Constitution is a law (albeit a higher one), that law is command, and that command is to be found in the text.”
Nourse goes so far as to argue that to remove the “vesting clauses” of the Constitution which divide power between the executive, legislative, and judicial branch would have no impact on the meaning of the Constitution. Nourse specifically references the Article I, Section 1 requirement that “All legislative Power herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States” and argues that “[t]hese descriptive words, assumed to be the most important and naturalized text in our Constitution, do nothing in and of themselves. They govern no one.” Per Nourse, if that the exclusive grant of legislative power to Congress “govern[s] no one” then judges are free to legislate their own policy preferences from the bench.
7) Nourse Advocates that International Law Should Supercede the Constitution, in a “New Legal Realism” in Which “The Power of Globalization on All of Our Lives is Recognized.” Nourse writes: “State law, including the frame of state constitutional law, is increasingly rivaled by law otherwise spatially extended, including sub-state law, regional supranational law, transnational domain-specific private ordering, hybrid public-private ordering and, increasingly, new forms of global legal regime that neither claim universality nor obviously emanate from nor respect the aggregative sovereign will.”
8) Nourse Wrote the Unconstitutional Violence Against Women Act (“VAWA”) and Compares Senators Who Opposed Her to People Who “Support Lynching.” This Act was overturned by the Supreme Court in U.S. v. Morrison because the Constitution does not provide Congress with the authority to enact the civil remedy provision under the Commerce Clause (Article I) or the Enforcement Clause (Fourteenth Amendment). She states: “[just as it is] difficult to believe any Senator could support lynching, it is difficult to believe they could oppose the Violence Against Women Act.” Accordingly, it is reasonable to question whether Nourse possesses the requisite temperament to serve as a federal appellate jurist.
9) Nourse Discounts The Existence and Influence of Natural Law and Fundamental Rights. The United States Declaration of Independenceexplicitly states that we have been “endowed by Our creator with certain unalienable rights,” yet Victoria Nourse has stated that “Real life, and reading hundreds of cases, have taught me that the natural in the law is quite unnatural,quite ‘made’ in the image of human relations, and that this is not simply a theoretical trope, that this ‘madeness’ is quite real and demonstrable.”
10) Victoria Nourse Describes Herself as a Zealot and Feminist. Nourse calls herself an “accidental feminist,” and looks up to feminist extremist such as Martha Fineman as role models. Fineman believes that caregiving and emotional nurturing are “gendered” activities that cause women to be undervalued. Nourse co-authored the book “Cases and Materials on Feminist Jurisprudence: Taking Women Seriously” and numerous other articles on the same subject.
Let’s take action! Please sign our NEW petition to fax 100 Senators instantly…
If you have time, please watch the video of Judge Victoria Nourse disrespecting the U.S. Constitution by explaining how it evolves over time, calling it the “self-transcending” Constitution. That’s crazy code for “Judges can amend its meaning without Congress.” No way. This lady needs to be filibustered.
Thanks for taking a stand with us. We’ve stopped our last 3 judges. Let’s go for 4.
God Bless you, in Jesus’ name,
Chaplain Gordon James Klingenschitt
For interviews or speaking invitations, select here
P.S. Time is urgent! The Senate Judiciary Committee could vote any Thursday on Victoria Nourse. Select and sign today, & we will forward your name immediately. Please don’t wait. Life, Liberty, and Marriage are too important to be banned by an extremist judge.
Prefer to donate by mail? Pray In Jesus Name Project, PO Box 77077, CoS, CO 80970.
Disclaimer: The views of Chaplain Klingenschmitt, who was honorably but involuntarily discharged from the Navy in 2007 after facing court-martial for praying “in Jesus name” in uniform, (but was later vindicated by Congress), are his own personal views, not the views of any political party, government, or organization.