STOP OBAMA JUDGE APPOINTEE NOURSE - SHE OPPOSES U.S. CONSTITUTION!!!

Dear Conservatives 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!)  Obama's worst Judge yet:  Victoria Nourse wants to re-write the Constitution  Our friend Philip Jauregui at the conservative Judicial Action Group (JAG) alerted us to possible 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 now be stopped, 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... SELECT HERE, SIGN PETITION, AND WE'LL AUTO-FAX YOUR PERSONALIZED PETITION TO ALL 100 U.S. SENATORS, OPPOSING VICTORIA NOURSE AS JUDGE 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.  These constitutional 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." SELECT HERE, SIGN PETITION, AND WE'LL AUTO-FAX YOUR PERSONALIZED PETITION TO ALL 100 U.S. SENATORS, OPPOSING VICTORIA NOURSE AS JUDGE 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 Independence explicitly 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... SELECT HERE, SIGN PETITION, AND WE'LL AUTO-FAX YOUR PERSONALIZED PETITION TO ALL 100 U.S. SENATORS, OPPOSING VICTORIA NOURSE AS JUDGE 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. SELECT HERE, SIGN PETITION, AND WE'LL AUTO-FAX YOUR PERSONALIZED PETITION TO ALL 100 U.S. SENATORS, OPPOSING VICTORIA NOURSE AS JUDGE

God Bless you, in Jesus' name,