Voters: Remember, the President Nominates Federal Judges
Voters, YOU are responsible for picking the person who will nominate justices and judges.
Do you want United States Supreme Court Justices who will strike "under God' from "The Pledge of Allegiance" and perhaps eliminate Christmas and Thanksgiving as national holidays on the ground that as national holidays they violate the neutrality between religion and irreligion that judicial activists pretend that the First Amendment mandates?
Do you want judicial nominees who would legislate from the bench if confirmed because they think they know best?
Do you want judges who will look to foreign countries for guidance?
If so, Obama is the one for you.
If not, vote McCain/Palin.
Fortunately, on October 1, 2008, the Judicial Confirmation Network (JCN) launched a $1,000,000 first phase of a nationwide grassroots campaign, which includes television ads in national and targeted markets, to raise awareness and recruit activists on the critical issue of the U.S. Supreme Court.
"A President Obama or a President McCain will be likely be handed an opportunity to affect the make-up of the Supreme Court that is unprecedented in our history," explained Wendy Long, chief counsel for the Judicial Confirmation Network (www.judicialnetwork.com).
The next President of the United States could have up to six United States Supreme Court vacancies to fill, along with up to 200 vacancies in the lower federal courts, so JCN is educating the public about the issue of Supreme Court nominations.
"Americans do not get to choose Supreme Court Justices. In their wisdom, the Framers of the Constitution provided that the President chooses them for all of us. The next President will exercise that most important judgment, probably at least several times. JCN is educating Americans about the differences between an 'Obama Court' that would engage in judicial activism, acting as a super-legislature and imposing a political agenda from the bench, and a 'McCain Court' that would likely practice judicial restraint and fairly apply the law based on what the Constitution says and on laws passed by the representatives accountable to the American people," Long said.
The JCN effort includes a television ad campaign coupled with a grassroots viral marketing campaign via direct mail, e-mail, text messaging, and phone outreach.
The text of the ad:
Long: With the help of hundreds of thousands of Americans, the Judicial Confirmation Network fought for the nominations of Supreme Court Justices John Roberts and Sam Alito. The next President may nominate 4 new Justices. So we'd like you to see this....
Voice Over: Choosing the right Justices is critical for America. We don't know who Barack Obama would choose, but we know this: He chose as one of his first financial backers a slumlord now convicted on 16 counts of corruption. Obama chose as an associate a man who helped to bomb the Pentagon and said he "didn't do enough." And Obama chose as his pastor a man who has blamed America for the 9/11 attacks. Obama chose to associate with these men, while voting against these men.
Long: Please join the Judicial Confirmation Network. We need a Supreme Court that respects the Constitution and Justices who won't legislate from the bench. Judicial Confirmation Network paid for this message and is responsible for it.
As stated, JCN is responsible for the ad.
Voters, YOU are responsible for picking the person who will nominate justices and judges.
Michael J. Gaynor has been practicing law in New York since 1973. A former partner at Fulton, Duncombe & Rowe and Gaynor & Bass, he is a solo practitioner admitted to practice in New York state and federal courts and an Association of the Bar of the City of New York member.
Gaynor graduated magna cum laude, with Honors in Social Science, from Hofstra University's New College, and received his J.D. degree from St. John's Law School, where he won the American Jurisprudence Award in Evidence and served as an editor of the Law Review and the St. Thomas More Institute for Legal Research. He wrote on the Pentagon Papers case for the Review and obscenity law for The Catholic Lawyer and edited the Law Review's commentary on significant developments in New York law.
The day after graduating, Gaynor joined the Fulton firm, where he focused on litigation and corporate law. In 1997 Gaynor and Emily Bass formed Gaynor & Bass and then conducted a general legal practice, emphasizing litigation, and represented corporations, individuals and a New York City labor union. Notably, Gaynor & Bass prevailed in the Second Circuit in a seminal copyright infringement case, Tasini v. New York Times, against newspaper and magazine publishers and Lexis-Nexis. The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed, 7 to 2, holding that the copyrights of freelance writers had been infringed when their work was put online without permission or compensation.
Gaynor currently contributes regularly to www.MichNews.com, www.RenewAmerica.com, www.WebCommentary.com, www.PostChronicle.com and www.therealitycheck.org and has contributed to many other websites. He has written extensively on political and religious issues, notably the Terry Schiavo case, the Duke "no rape" case, ACORN and canon law, and appeared as a guest on television and radio. He was acknowledged in Until Proven Innocent, by Stuart Taylor and KC Johnson, and Culture of Corruption, by Michelle Malkin. He appeared on "Your World With Cavuto" to promote an eBay boycott that he initiated and "The World Over With Raymond Arroyo" (EWTN) to discuss the legal implications of the Schiavo case. On October 22, 2008, Gaynor was the first to report that The New York Times had killed an Obama/ACORN expose on which a Times reporter had been working with ACORN whistleblower Anita MonCrief.
Cover
•
Commentary
•
Books & Reviews
•
Climate Change
•
Site Links
•
Feedback
