Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Bush to appoint "first" Hispanic (liberal) to the U.S. Supreme Court?
12-27-2002 | Brian Baldwin

Posted on 12/27/2002 11:51:16 AM PST by Brian_Baldwin

We were told how many times, and are continued to be told, that the reason it is so important that Bush is elected and that we blindly support his Administration, and not even to be permitted as conservatives to criticize his policies, is because of judges, because of who gets appointed to judgeships. Bush will probably have the opportunity to nominate and advance one Supreme Court judgeship. And in addition, his Administration will influence appointments to judgeships across the nation.

And, of particular importance, the reason why we dare not, as reasonable patriots, criticize any policies of his Administration that betray conservatives, is because of that Supreme Court appointment, because if a Supreme Court judgeship is advanced by his Administration, this appointment will effect the course of our nation for many years, if not decades, to come. And so it is important that a conservative be appointed to this Court, and to courts across the nation. Bush will forward conservative nominees to the court.

He will?

Well, across the nation, that is not exactly happening. Maybe it started to happen, but it isn’t anymore. In fact, if you look at the influence the Bush Administration has played, if at all, in nominations and appointments, they are often going to liberals, and especially to Hispanics (which invariable in the end turn out to be liberals as well) as part of the continued effort by his Administration and some Republicans to court the “Latino-American” vote, and other politically motivated nominations and appointments.

President Bush's efforts to promote Judge Charles W. Pickering Sr. to an appeals court post? President Bush's nomination of Jeffrey Sutton for a federal judgeship? So what. Sure, this made headlines by the phony liberal news acting as mouthpieces for the Democratic Party. What has made lesser news, is the liberals that were appointed to courts across the nation, in which the Bush Administration has either been, for political reasons, out of the picture, or even supported liberal judges. His Administration, and especially since the Trent Lott affair, is not trying to influence such appointments to promote conservative judges. And since the Lott affair, with even many conservatives supporting Lott’s removal, you have seen a shift to the left to appease anyone who may call one a racist. As predicted, the left and the Democrats are now using the same spin that many conservatives have allowed them to use against Lott as an attack on other Republicans. It is now started even in regards to Reagan and his legacy, and the rewriting of his legacy – Reagan supported “States Rights” in one of his speeches, thus he is a “racist in heart” like Lott or any other Republican who opposes Affirmative Action.

You see? But you did it to yourselves. And, it won’t stop there, with Reagan.

They are on the phone right now, the “coalitions”, threatening Republican officials and officeholders with the same attack, they are working in conjunction with the phony liberal news, and they will, and are, influencing them behind the scenes. And, like I said, many of you conservatives, you did it to yourselves. This whole spin, this new weapon that you have handed to the enemy, they will use it, and use it well. They will use to effect any Supreme Court nominee. And, who is the Bush Administration now turning to for advise in judgeship nominations? The Log Cabin Republicans. That’s right. You don’t believe me? Well, just watch the conservative talk shows, the truth will get out. You don’t think the Lott affair, the concession in large part supported by conservatives to such P.C. speech control, will not only control political speech but also stage-manage who gets nominated to such appointments? It will. It is.

And, as far as a Supreme Court nominee? Bush is going to give us conservative judges? Right?

And, no one dare criticize Bush. Because of the Supreme Court judgeship. It’s very important. That he or she be a conservative.

And then maybe Bush nominates a liberal.

He won’t?

Well, on the Walter Williams show today, Walter said the word is out that the Bush Administration is seeking to appoint the “first Hispanic to the Supreme Court”. I don’t know if this is exactly true – not that the Bush Administration is thinking about doing this, because that is probably now very true, rather, if there has never been an Hispanic on the Supremes. Because, maybe there was only he or she didn’t know it. But, it probably is true, the new Bush agenda as far as the Supremes are concerned. That, this will be their nominee.

Yeah, you say. A conservative Hispanic.

You think it will be a conservative Hispanic? What if it is not? And, it probably will not be. In fact, it likely will not be.

It’s all about Bush we are told, pray for Bush, because Bush will appoint a conservative to the U.S. Supreme Court. And then he nominates, and forwards, a liberal.

But, don’t be surprised. Don’t say you didn’t expect it. And if and when that happens, maybe you should think about the Trent Lott chess-move by the left. Pawn takes Knight.

Bush has now been in office for two years. When he first got into office, he spent a lot of time running around with Vicente Fox. In fact, he spent so much time running around with Vicente Fox of Mexico, that he wasn’t interested in a whole lot of folks who were saying that Al Qaida and the Islamic Terrorists are going to hit the U.S. again, they definitely will try the World Trade Center again because they didn’t finish the job the first time, and that our national security is at risk, that our borders are porous, illegal aliens, (lack of) INS enforcement, and crazy immigration policies are going to cost thousands of American lives. But, you know, can’t deal with that because it might make some Hispanics mad at us.

And, with the Trent Lott affair, gosh, now we have to be even more diligent – not about our borders, but about the possibility of insulting Hispanics. As Republicans, we have learned our lesson since Trent Lott. And the lesson is, it’s been two years of Bush, and our borders are porous, and we are going to be hit again. But that isn’t the issue. The issue is, what can the Bush Administration, and Republicans, do about race relations? Gosh, maybe the answer is, what we are hearing the Bush Administration is probably going to do. What better way to build a legacy for the Bush Administration, than to appoint the an Hispanic to the U.S. Supreme Court? So what if he is even a liberal? Hey! I have an idea! The Bush Administration can setup a Palestinian State! Now, there’s a legacy! Gosh, maybe the Palestinian State will get the nuclear bomb, like North Korea did under Clinton. Gosh, since the Palestinians glorify suicide bombers so much, maybe this Palestinian State will decide to become just one big Suicide Bomber State and blow itself up with it’s own nuclear bomb and thus take out a few neighbors like Israel in the process. After all, that’s the whole idea anyway. It’s isn’t about a State. It’s about killing all the Jews.

By the way. How’s our borders? Just wondering, because the same folks who want to kill all the Jews, they want to kill all the Americans as well. “Death to the Jews, Death to America”, they say. But that isn’t hate speech. In fact, the liberals, the left, those who run our schools and universities, are showing a lot of “solidarity” with the “struggle” of the “ (you name it) people”, who want to do this to us. But Trent Lott, now what he said, that’s hate. And I guess a lot of conservatives went along with it. Gosh, maybe protecting our borders is now hate as well. Gosh, maybe a conservative judge for the U.S. Supreme Court is now hate as well. And, we sure learned our lesson. We won’t do the same mistake, again.


TOPICS: Chit/Chat
KEYWORDS:

1 posted on 12/27/2002 11:51:22 AM PST by Brian_Baldwin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Brian_Baldwin
Oh shut up.

How about more facts, and less speculation?

2 posted on 12/27/2002 11:57:15 AM PST by BuddhaBoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #3 Removed by Moderator

To: Brian_Baldwin
Trent Lott had an affair?
4 posted on 12/27/2002 11:58:14 AM PST by RAT Patrol
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brian_Baldwin
When you get that much built up inside of you a little help is needed. Take a good dose and maybe things will clear out for you......


5 posted on 12/27/2002 11:59:47 AM PST by deport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brian_Baldwin
I take it you're not a Bush fan. I'm not a Bushbot, but all I have to say is wait and see.
6 posted on 12/27/2002 11:59:54 AM PST by Sparta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brian_Baldwin
Why are vanities always so longwinded? Say hi to Alec, for us.
7 posted on 12/27/2002 12:02:02 PM PST by rabidralph
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BuddhaBoy
Like Miguel Estrada?
8 posted on 12/27/2002 12:02:05 PM PST by kaktuskid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: BuddhaBoy
Thank you...wuz thinking the same thing

v/r
9 posted on 12/27/2002 12:02:58 PM PST by frei_staat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Brian_Baldwin
Is Brian Baldwin an anti-Hispanic Conservative or an anti-Hispanic Liberal? Is stereotyping back in style? Are Moderate Republicans better or worse that a Conservative Democrats and which have more power in their respective parties? It's going to take longer than most people realize for Republicans to learn how to deal with success.

10 posted on 12/27/2002 12:07:32 PM PST by Consort
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brian_Baldwin

 

GOP MAJORITY - JANUARY
END OF THE 'BULL' OR END OF THE MATADOR

GOP has to do 3 things. (1) Recover the economy (2) Don't screw up in the Near East and Far East (3) Appoint pro-life Judges.

There is no more 'Dashhole' to blame. The buck stops with President Bush.

11 posted on 12/27/2002 12:08:13 PM PST by ex-snook
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BuddhaBoy
I agree Buddah...this is pure garbage...
12 posted on 12/27/2002 12:09:49 PM PST by antaresequity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Brian_Baldwin
Can you point out all the liberal and Hispanic judges that has been appointed.
U.S. District Courts
Confirmed Nominees
 

NOMINEE DISTRICT NOMINATION
QUESTIONAIRE
FBI
ABA
HEARING COMMITTEE
ACTION
SENATE
ACTION
Sam E. Haddon
MT
5/17/01
5/21/01 5/18/01 6/28/01
7/11/01

7/19/01,
19 yeas, 0 nays

7/20/01
95 yeas, 0 nays

Richard F. Cebull
MT
5/17/01
5/21/01 5/18/01 6/28/01
7/11/01

7/19/01
19 yeas, 0 nays

7/20/01
93 yeas, 0 nays

Laurie Smith Camp
NE

6/19/01,
9/5/01

6/28/01 6/28/01 8/9/01
10/4/01

10/18/01
19 yeas, 0 nays

10/23/01
100 yeas, 0 nays

Reggie B. Walton
DC District

6/20/01,
9/5/01

6/29/01 6/28/01 8/9/01
8/22/01

9/6/01
19 yeas, 0 nays

9/21/01
97 yeas, 0 nays

John D. Bates
DC District

6/20/01,
9/5/01

6/26/01 6/28/01 8/23/01
10/25/01
11/29/01
19 yeas, 0 nays
12/11/01
97 yeas, 0 nays
Michael P. Mills
NDMS

7/11/01,
9/5/01

7/24/01 7/16/01 8/29/01
9/13/01

10/4/01
19 yeas, 0 nays

10/11/01
98 yeas, 0 nays

Karen K. Caldwell
EDKY

8/2/01,
9/5/01

8/16/01 8/14/01 9/28/01
10/4/01

10/18/01
19 yeas, 0 nays

10/23/01
100 yeas, 0 nays

Claire V. Eagan
NDOK

8/2/01,
9/5/01

8/16/01 8/14/01 9/25/01
10/4/01

10/18/01
19 yeas, 0 nays

10/23/01
99 yeas, 0 nays

James H. Payne
N/E/W OK

8/2/01,
9/5/01

8/24/01 8/14/01 9/25/01
10/4/01

10/18/01
19 yeas, 0 nays

10/23/01
100 yeas, 0 nays

Terry Wooten SC 6/18/01,
9/5/01
6/28/01 6/28/01 7/31/01 8/27/01 11/8/01
19 yeas, 0 nays
11/8/01
98 yeas, 0 nays
M. Christina Armijo
NM

8/2/01,
9/5/01

9/4/01 8/14/01 10/12/01
10/18/01

11/1/01
19 yeas, 0 nays

11/6/01
100 yeas, 0 nays
Karon O. Bowdre
NDAL

8/2/01,
9/5/01

8/16/01 8/14/01 10/9/01
10/18/01

11/1/01
19 yeas, 0 nays

11/6/01
98 yeas, 0 nays
Kurt D. Engelhardt
EDLA

8/2/01,
9/5/01

8/16/01 8/14/01 9/28/01
10/25/01
11/29/01
19 yeas, 0 nays
12/11/01
voice vote
Stephen P. Friot
WDOK

8/2/01,
9/5/01

8/16/01 8/14/01 10/1/01
10/18/01

11/1/01
19 yeas, 0 nays

11/6/01
98 yeas, 0 nays
Joe L. Heaton
WDOK

8/2/01,
9/5/01

8/24/01 8/14/01 10/1/01
11/7/01
11/29/01
19 yeas, 0 nays
12/6/01
voice vote
Larry R. Hicks
NV

8/2/01,
9/5/01

8/24/01 8/14/01 10/2/01
10/18/01

11/1/01
19 yeas, 0 nays

11/6/01
83 yeas, 0 nays
William P. Johnson
NM

8/2/01,
9/5/01

8/16/01 8/14/01 10/12/01
10/25/01
11/29/01
19 yeas, 0 nays
12/13/01
voice vote
Danny C. Reeves
EDKY

8/2/01,
9/5/01

8/16/01 8/14/01 9/28/01
11/7/01
11/29/01
19 yeas, 0 nays
12/6/01
voice vote
Marcia S. Krieger
CO
9/10/01
9/21/01 9/19/01 11/9/01
12/5/01
12/13/01
UC
1/25/0283 yeas, 0 nays
James C. Mahan
NV
9/10/01
9/21/01 9/19/01 11/20/01
12/5/01
12/13/01
UC
1/25/02
81 yeas, 0 nays
Frederick J. Martone
AZ
9/10/01
9/21/01 9/19/01 10/25/01
11/7/01
11/29/01
19 yeas, 0 nays
12/13/01
voice vote
Julie A. Robinson
KS
9/10/01
9/21/01 9/19/01 10/30/01
11/7/01
11/29/01
19 yeas, 0 nays
12/11/01
voice vote
Clay D. Land
MD GA
9/24/01
9/25/01 9/25/01 10/30/01
11/7/01
11/29/01
19 yeas, 0 nays
12/13/01
voice vote
C. Ashley Royal
MD GA
10/10/01
11/5/01 10/31/01 11/14/01
12/5/01
12/13/01
UC
12/20/01
voice vote
Jay C. Zainey
ED LA
10/11/01
10/31/01 10/31/01 11/27/01
1/24/02
2/7/02
19 yeas, 0 nays
2/11/02,
92 yeas, 0 nays
Richard J. Leon
DC District
9/10/01
9/21/01 9/19/01 11/29/01
1/24/02
2/7/02
19 yeas, 0 nays
2/14/02
Voice Vote
David L Bunning
EDKY

8/2/01,
9/5/01

8/16/01 8/14/01 10/11/01
12/10/01
2/7/02
19 yeas, 0 nays
2/14/02
Voice Vote
James E. Gritzner
SDIA

7/11/01,
9/5/01

7/18/01 7/16/01 8/27/01
1/24/02
2/7/02
19 yeas, 0 nays
2/14/02
Voice Vote
Robert E. Blackburn
CO
9/10/01
9/25/01 9/19/01 11/14/01
1/24/02
2/7/02
19 yeas, 0 nays
2/26/02
98 yeas, 0 nays
Cindy K. Jorgenson
AZ
9/10/01
9/25/01 9/19/01 11/20/01
1/24/02
2/7/02
19 yeas, 0 nays
2/26/02
98 yeas, 0 nays
Philip R. Martinez
WD TX
10/10/01
11/5/01 10/31/01 11/14/01
12/5/02
12/13/01
by UC
2/5/02
93 yeas
0 nays
Callie V. Granade
SDAL

8/2/01,
9/5/01

8/24/01 8/14/01 10/12/01
12/05/01
12/13/01
19 yeas
0 nays
2/4/02
75 yeas
0 nays
Ralph R. Beistline AK District 11/9/01 1/4/02 11/19/01 1/02/02 2/26/02 3/7/02
19 yeas
0 nays
3/12/02
98 yeas
0 nays
David C. Bury
AZ
9/10/01
9/21/01 9/19/01 11/5/01
2/26/02
3/7/02
19 yeas
0 nays


3/15/02
90 yeas
0 nays

Randy Crane
SD TX
9/24/01
9/25/01 9/25/01 11/14/01
2/26/02
3/7/02
19 yeas
0 nays

3/18/02
91 yeas

0 nays

Lance M. Africk

Eastern District, LA 1/24/02 2/21/02 1/30/02 3/7/02 3/20/02 4/11/02
19 yeas
0 nays
4/17/02
97 yeas
0 nays

Legrome D. Davis

Eastern District, PA 1/24/02 1/31/02 1/30/02 3/13/02 3/20/02 4/11//02
19 yeas
0 nays
4/18/02
94 yeas
0 nays

Percy Anderson

Central District, CA 1/24/02 1/31/02 1/30/02 3/21/02 4/11/02 4/18/02
19 yeas
0 nays
4/25/02
99 yeas
0 nays

John F. Walter

Central District, CA 1/24/02 1/31/02 1/29/02 3/21/02 4/11/02 4/18/02
19 yeas
0 nays
4/25/02
99 yeas
0 nays

Joan E. Lancaster

MN 1/24/02 1/31/02 1/30/02 3/22/02 4/11/02 4/18/02
19 yeas
0 nays
4/25/02
99 yeas
0 nays

William C. Griesbach

Eastern District, WI 1/24/02 1/31/02 1/30/02 4/8/02 4/11/02 4/18/02
19 yeas
0 nays
4/25/02
97 yeas
0 nays

Cynthia M. Rufe

Eastern District, PA 1/24/02 1/31/02 1/30/02 3/25/02 4/11/02 4/18/02
19 yeas
0 nays
4/30/02
98 yeas
0 nays

Michael M. Baylson

Eastern District, PA 1/24/02 2/21/02 1/30/02 3/25/02 4/11/02 4/18/02
19 yeas
0 nays
4/30/02
98 yeas
0 nays

Andrew S. Hanen

Southern District, TX 1/24/02 1/31/02 1/30/02 3/22/02 4/25/02
5/2/02
UC
5/9/02
97 yeas
0 nays

Thomas M. Rose

Southern District, OH 1/24/02 1/31/02 1/30/02 4/8/02 4/25/02 5/2/02
UC
5/9/02
95 yeas
0 nays

Samuel H. Mays Jr.

Western District, TN 1/24/02 1/31/02 1/30/02 4/17/02 4/25/02 5/2/02
UC
5/9/02
97 yeas
0 nays

Leonard E. Davis

Eastern District, TX 1/24/02 1/31/02 1/30/02 4/1/02 4/25/02 5/2/02
UC
5/9/02
97 yeas
0 nays
Paul G. Cassell
UT

6/19/01,
9/5/01

7/3/01 6/28/01 8/20/01
3/19/02
5/2/02
UC w/four objections
5/13/02
67 yeas
20 nays
Christopher C. Conner
Middle District,
PA
3/1/02
3/7/02
3/13/02
4/22/02
5/9/02
5/16/02
19 Yeas
0 Nays
7/26/02 Voice Vote

Joy FLowers Conti

Western District, PA 1/24/02 1/31/02 1/30/02 3/21/02 5/9/02 5/16/02
19 yeas
0 nays
7/29/02
96 Yea
0 Nay
John E. Jones III
Middle District,
PA
3/1/02
3/7/02
3/13/02
4/22/02
5/9/02
5/16/02
19 Yeas
0 Nays
7/29/02
96 Yea
0 Nay
Morrison C. England Eastern District, CA 3/22/02 4/9/02 3/26/02 6/13/02 6/13/02 6/20/02
19 Yeas
0 Nays
8/1/02
Voice Vote
Amy J. St. Eve Northern District, IL 3/22/02 3/27/02 3/26/02 5/17/02 5/23/02 6/13/02
19 Yeas
0 Nays
8/1/02
Voice Vote
Henry C. Autrey Eastern District,
MO
3/22/02 4/9/02 3/26/02 5/21/02 5/23/02 6/13/02
19 Yeas
0 Nays
8/1/02
Voice Vote
Richard E. Dorr Western District, MO 3/22/02 3/26/02 4/3/02 5/13/02 5/23/02 6/13/02
19 Yeas
0 Nays
8/1/02
Voice Vote
David S. Cercone Western District, PA 3/22/02 4/9/02 3/26/02 5/15/02 6/13/02 6/20/02
19 Yeas
0 Nays
8/1/02
Voice Vote
Timothy J. Savage Eastern District,
PA
3/22/02 3/28/02 3/26/02 5/14/02 5/23/02 6/13/02
19 Yeas
0 Nays
8/1/02
Voice Vote

David C. Godbey

Northern District, TX 1/24/02 2/6/02 1/30/02 4/8/02 4/25/02 6/13/02
19 Yeas
0 Nays

8/1/02
Voice Vote

Henry E. Hudson

Eastern District, VA 1/24/02 1/31/02 1/30/02 3/14/02 5/23/02 6/13/02
19 Yeas
0 Nays
8/1/02
Voice Vote

Terrence F. McVerry

Western District, PA 1/24/02 1/31/02 1/30/02 3/13/02 6/27/02 7/31/02
19 Yeas
0 Nays

9/3/02
88 Yeas
0 Nays

Kenneth A. Marra

Southern District, FL 1/24/02

1/31/02

1/29/02 4/1/02 6/13/02 6/20/02
19 Yeas
0 Nays
9/9/02
82 Yeas
0 Nays
Timothy J. Corrigan Middle District
FL
5/23/02 6/4/02 5/29/02 7/2/02 7/23/02 7/31/02
19 Yeas
0 Nays
9/12/02
88 Yeas
0 Nays

Jose E. Martinez

Southern District, FL 1/24/02 1/31/02 1/30/02 4/1/02 7/23/02 7/31/02
19 Yeas
0 Nays
9/13/02
Voice Vote

Arthur J. Schwab

Western District, PA 1/24/02 1/31/02 1/30/02 4/8/02 6/27/02 7/31/02
19 Yeas
0 Nays
9/13/02
92 Yeas
0 Nays

Ronald H. Clark

Eastern District, TX 1/24/02 1/31/02 1/30/02 2/27/02 8/1/02

9/18/02
Voice Vote

10/2/02
Voice Vote
James Knoll Gardner Eastern District
PA
4/24/02 5/15/02 4/24/02 7/2/02 8/1/02 9/5/02
17 Yeas
2 Nays
10/2/02
Voice Vote

Stanley R. Chesler

NJ 1/24/02 2/6/02 1/30/02 3/14/02 9/26/02 10/8/02 11/14/02

William J. Martini

NJ 1/24/02 1/31/02 1/30/02 3/25/02 9/18/02 10/8/02 11/14/02

Ronald B. Leighton

Western District, WA 1/24/02 1/31/02 1/30/02 6/4/02 10/7/02 10/8/02 11/14/02
Linda R. Reade Northern District
IA
6/27/02 7/11/02 7/2/02 9/16/02 9/26/02 10/8/02 11/14/02
Thomas W. Phillips Eastern District
TN
6/27/02 7/12/02 7/2/02 9/3/02 9/18/02 10/8/02 11/14/02
Daniel L. Hovland ND 6/27/02 7/17/02 7/2/02 9/12/02 9/26/02 10/8/02 11/14/02
Alia M. Ludlum Western District
Texas
7/12/02 7/26/02 7/30/02 8/26/02 9/18/02 10/8/02 11/14/02
Robert G. Klausner Central District California 7/19/02 8/16/02 7/30/02 10/2/02 10/7/02 10/8/02 11/14/02
James E. Kinkeade Northern District Texas 7/19/02 7/26/02 7/30/02 9/16/02 9/26/02 10/8/02 11/14/02
William E. Smith Rhode Island 7/19/02 7/30/02 7/30/02 9/23/02 10/7/02 10/8/02 11/14/02
Kent A. Jordan Delaware 7/26/02 7/30/02 7/30/02 8/29/02 9/18/02 10/8/02 11/14/02
Jeffrey S. White Northern District
California
7/26/02 7/31/02 7/30/02 9/3/02 9/18/02 10/8/02 11/14/02
Mark E. Fuller Middle District
Alabama
8/2/02 8/14/02 8/15/02 9/23/02 10/7/02 10/8/02 11/14/02
Rosemary M. Collyer District of Columbia 8/2/02 8/6/02 8/14/02 10/1/02 10/7/02 10/8/02 11/14/02
Robert B. Kugler New Jersey 8/2/02 8/6/02 8/15/02 9/18/02 10/7/02 10/8/02 11/14/02
Jose L. Linares New Jersey 8/2/02 8/14/02 8/14/02 9/20/02 10/7/02 10/8/02 11/14/02
Freda L. Wolfson New Jersey 8/2/02 8/8/02 8/23/02 9/19/02 9/26/02 10/8/02 11/14/02

Pending Nominations

NOMINEE
POSITION
NOMINATION
QUESTIONAIRE
FBI
ABA
HEARING
COMMITTEE
ACTION
SENATE
ACTION

Frederick W. Rohlfing, III

HI 1/24/02 2/6/02 1/30/02
James C. Dever Eastern District
NC
5/23/02 5/31/02 5/30/02 8/1/02      
S. James Otero Central District California 7/19/02 8/8/02 7/30/02 10/17/02      
Robert A. Junell Western District Texas 7/19/02 8/16/02 7/30/02 10/3/02      
Sandra J. Feuerstein

Eastern District
New York

7/26/02 7/31/02 7/30/02 10/7/02      
Richard J. Holwell Southern District
New York
8/2/02 8/15/02 8/15/02 10/22/02      
Gregory L. Frost Southern District
Ohio
8/2/02 8/14/02 8/15/02 10/21/02      
Ralph R. Erickson North Dakota 9/13/02 9/19/02 9/20/02 11/12/02      
S. Maurice Hicks Lousiana 9/13/02 9/23/02 9/18/02        
Thomas L. Ludington Michigan 9/13/02 9/24/02 9/24/02 11/20/02      
William D. Quarles Maryland 9/13/02 9/19/02 9/18/02 11/1/02      
Cormac J. Carney Central District of California 10/11/02 10/15/02 10/24/02        
John R. Adams Northern District of Ohio 10/11/02 10/24/02 10/24/02        
J. Daniel Breen Western District of Tennessee 10/11/02 10/24/02 10/24/02        
Thomas A. Varlan Eastern District of Tennessee 10/11/02 10/18/02 10/24/02        

13 posted on 12/27/2002 12:10:17 PM PST by deport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ex-snook
"There is no more 'Dashhole' to blame. The buck stops with President Bush."

It's put up or shut up for Dubya.

14 posted on 12/27/2002 12:11:19 PM PST by Happy2BMe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Brian_Baldwin
U.S. Courts of Appeal

Confirmed Nominees
 

NOMINEE DISTRICT NOMINATION QUESTIONAIRE FBI ABA HEARING COMMITTEE
ACTION
SENATE
ACTION
Roger L. Gregory
4th Circuit

1/3/01,
5/9/01

5/15/01 5/17/01 6/11/01
7/11/01

7/19/01
19 yeas, 0 nays

7/20/01
93 yeas, 1 nay

Barrington "Danny" Parker, Jr.
2nd Circuit

5/9/01,
9/5/01

5/15/01 5/14/01 6/11/01
9/13/01

10/4/01
19 yeas, 0 nays

10/11/01
100 yeas, 0 nays

Sharon Prost
Federal Circuit

5/21/01,
9/5/01

5/25/01 5/31/01 7/23/01
8/27/01

9/6/01
19 yeas, 0 nays

9/21/01
97 yeas, 0 nays

William J. Riley
8th Circuit
5/23/01
5/30/01 5/30/01 6/28/01
7/24/01

8/2/01
19 yeas, 0 nays

8/2/01
97 yeas, 0 nays

Edith Brown Clement 5th Circuit 5/9/01,
9/5/01
5/17/01 5/14/01 6/8/01 10/4/01 11/1/01
18 yeas, 1 present
11/13/01
99 yeas, 0 nays
Harris L. Hartz 10th Circuit 6/21/01,
9/5/01
6/26/01 6/28/01 8/16/01 10/25/01 11/29/01
19 yeas, 0 nays
12/6/01
99 yeas, 0 nays
Michael J. Melloy
8th Circuit

7/10/11,
9/5/01

7/18/01 7/16/01 8/29/01
1/24/02
2/7/02
19 yeas, 0 nays
2/11/02
91 yeas, 0 nays
Terrence L. O'Brien
10th Circuit

8/2/01,
9/5/01

9/4/01 8/14/01 10/29/01
3/19/02
4/11/02
19 yeas
0 nays
4/15/02
98 yeas
0 nays
Jeffrey R. Howard
1st Circuit

8/2/01,
9/5/01

8/24/01 8/14/01 10/3/01
4/11/02

4/18/02
19 yeas
0 nays

4/23/02
99 yeas
0 nays
Lavenski R. Smith
8th Circuit

5/22/01,
9/5/01

6/4/01 5/30/01 8/9/01
5/23/02
6/27/02
19 yeas
0 nays
7/11/02
Voice Vote
Richard R. Clifton
9th Circuit

6/22/01,
9/5/01

7/6/01 7/16/01 8/29/01
5/9/02
5/16/02
19 yeas
0 nays
7/18/02
98 yeas
0 nays
Julia Smith Gibbons
6th Circuit
10/10/01
11/7/01 10/31/01 10/14/01
4/25/02
5/2/02
19 yeas
0 nays
7/29/02
95 yeas
0 nays
D. Brooks Smith
3rd Circuit
9/10/01
9/25/01 9/21/01 10/31/01
2/26/02
5/23/02
12 yeas
7 nays
7/31/02
64 yeas
35 nays
Reena Raggi 2nd Circuit 5/2/02 5/8/02 6/13/02 6/25/02 8/1/02 9/5/02
19 Yeas
0 Nays

9/20/02
85 Yeas
0 Nays

John M. Rogers

6th Circuit 11/9/01 1/4/02 1/14/02 2/21/02 6/13/02 7/11/02
voice vote
11/14/02
Michael W. McConnell
10th Circuit

5/9/01,
9/5/01

5/25/01 5/14/01 7/10/01
9/18/02
11/14/02
Voice Vote
11/15/02
Unanimous Consent
Dennis Shedd
4th Circuit

5/9/01,
9/5/01

5/15/01 5/14/01 6/19/01
6/27/02
11/14/02
Voice Vote
11/19/02
55 Ayes
44 Nays
                 
 
Pending Nominations

NOMINEE
POSITION
NOMINATION
QUESTIONAIRE
FBI
ABA
HEARING
COMMITTEE
ACTION
SENATE
ACTION
Terrence Boyle
4th Circuit

5/9/01,
9/5/01

5/25/01 5/14/01 7/8/01
Priscilla Owen
5th Circuit

5/9/01,
9/5/01

5/15/01 5/17/01 6/21/01
7/23/02
9/5/02
9 Ayes
10 Nays
Jeffrey Sutton
6th Circuit

5/9/01,
9/5/01

5/15/01 5/14/01 6/11/01
Deborah L. Cook
6th Circuit

5/9/01,
9/5/01

5/15/01 5/14/01 6/11/01
Miguel A. Estrada
DC Circuit

5/9/01,
9/5/01

5/17/01 5/14/01 7/8/01
9/26/02
John G. Roberts, Jr.
DC Circuit

5/9/01,
9/5/01

5/15/01 5/14/01 6/20/01
Charles W. Pickering, Sr.
5th Circuit

5/25/01,
9/5/01

6/14/01 5/30/01 7/23/01
10/18/01,
2/7/02
3/14/02
9 yeas,
10 nays
Timothy M. Tymkovich
10th Circuit

5/25/01,
9/5/01

6/12/01 5/30/01 9/10/01
Carolyn B. Kuhl
9th Circuit

6/22/01,
9/5/01

6/29/01 7/16/01 8/27/01
William H. Steele
11th Circuit
10/10/01
11/5/01 10/31/01 11/30/01

David W. McKeague

6th Circuit 11/9/01 11/16/01 12/5/01 12/28/01

Susan Bieke Neilson

6th Circuit 11/9/01 1/4/02

12/5/01

12/28/01

Henry W. Saad

6th Circuit 11/9/01 1/4/02 12/5/01 1/15/02
Jay S. Bybee 9th Circuit 5/23/02 5/29/02 5/30/02 7/16/02      
Richard A. Griffin 6th Circuit 6/27/02 7/11/02 7/2/02 9/25/02    

15 posted on 12/27/2002 12:12:26 PM PST by deport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jimer
Is stereotyping back in style?

Apparently it is.
Walter Williams is the one suggesting that Dubya's first consideration for the appointment is ethnic origin rather than actual qualification. Sure sounds like affirmative action to me.

16 posted on 12/27/2002 12:16:28 PM PST by Willie Green
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: deport
I want to see more action and less cow-towing to the PC crowd.

What is the scoop on these items near-and-dear to the hearts of millions of supporters who put Dubya where he is in the first place:

1. Banning partial-birth abortions?

2. Banning burning of the United States Flag?

3. Recognizing English as the official language of the United States?

4. Officially recognizing the heterosexual man/woman mairrage as the only legally recognized mairrage?

5. Getting control of the Mexican border?

6. Getting control of illegal immigration?

7. Keeping jobs in America?

8. Correcting the trade imbalance with China and Europe?

9. Securing our own petrolueum sources on American soil and freeing us from Islamic economic blackmail.

Many, many more Dubya has to fess up to.

We put him there for a reason.

17 posted on 12/27/2002 12:18:22 PM PST by Happy2BMe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Happy2BMe
Well, myself, I supported him because of national defense. He is doing a bang-up job on that. The rest of those issues (other than partial birth abortion ban) can wait a few months, IMHO.
18 posted on 12/27/2002 12:20:09 PM PST by Miss Marple
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Miss Marple
"The rest of those issues (other than partial birth abortion ban) can wait a few months, IMHO."

Well, if you looks at the "hair-thin" majority margin in the House and Senate if may be cause for caution.

What are we talking about here in terms of "a few months?"

2003? 2004?

When?

19 posted on 12/27/2002 12:23:51 PM PST by Happy2BMe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: BuddhaBoy
Shame what crap passes for vanities on FR these days. Bush makes history by dragging his party across the finish line in November in truly incredible fashion. We here on FR spent days, weeks, talking about how well the GOP did and how vindicated we felt that the Rats had been whipped. But idiots like this Billy Baldwin or whatever the posters name is, don't realize it is Bush and his, give an inch to the Rats, take a mile for the GOP strategy is what made our vicotry possible. Posters like this are the ones who like being in the minority.
20 posted on 12/27/2002 12:28:54 PM PST by paul544
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Happy2BMe
Well don't put your trust in government too deeply or you are destined to be disappointed most of the time. Gov't is compromise in it's most offensive ways much of the time... imo
21 posted on 12/27/2002 12:33:50 PM PST by deport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Brian_Baldwin
I agree. Bush should be impeached at once and thrown out of office!!!!!! Beheaded maybe!!!!! There is no room in the White House for not nominating strict right-wingers to the bench. Maybe we can replace Bush with Pat Buchanon.

Brian, it is people like you who get people like Bill Clinton elected.

22 posted on 12/27/2002 12:35:20 PM PST by bduet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brian_Baldwin
You don't like islam very much do you.
23 posted on 12/27/2002 12:36:07 PM PST by thepitts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brian_Baldwin
Badly written, repetitive, and no punch line.
24 posted on 12/27/2002 12:36:52 PM PST by mlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brian_Baldwin
Bush appointed both Condeleeza (sp?) Rice and Colin Powell. And while neither are real fire-breathing right-wingers, they certainly aren't leftists. Rice is a pretty solid conservative and Powell is probably "right-center".
25 posted on 12/27/2002 12:37:36 PM PST by jjm2111
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brian_Baldwin
La Belle France awaits you with open arms. Tell Alec we all wish him well and never to leave gaqy Paree.
26 posted on 12/27/2002 12:37:49 PM PST by Temple Owl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brian_Baldwin
I guess if Bush appoints a liberal of any race or ethnicity to the Supremem Court then we will burn that bridge when we come to it.

Stay well - Stay safe - Stay armed - Yorktown

27 posted on 12/27/2002 12:38:48 PM PST by harpseal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Miss Marple
Well, myself, I supported him because of national defense. He is doing a bang-up job on that. The rest of those issues (other than partial birth abortion ban) can wait a few months, IMHO.


bump
28 posted on 12/27/2002 12:39:28 PM PST by TLBSHOW
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: deport
"Well don't put your trust in government too deeply or you are destined to be disappointed most of the time. Gov't is compromise in it's most offensive ways much of the time... imo"

Two oxymorons:

#1. An honest carsalesman.

#2. An honest polititian.

It would however, be of the utmost satisfaction if the government could be honest at least once or twice every couple of years.

Lies, lies, and more lies.

Doesn't seem to matter who is driving the train.

29 posted on 12/27/2002 12:40:06 PM PST by Happy2BMe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Sparta
I take it you're not a Bush fan. I'm not a Bushbot, but all I have to say is wait and see.

I've been waiting, and I've been seeing. Just what will it take for you to finally say, what Bush is doing is just not right?

I waited and saw:

The Airline bailouts.

I waited and saw:

$205 million Amtrak bailout.

I waited and saw:

Federal prescription drug subsidies, $350 billion over 10 years.

I waited and saw:

Increased federal spending on education from $39.9-billion to $44.5-billion.

I waited and saw:

$255 million over two years to expand US media influence in predominantly Muslim countries.

I waited and saw:

Rejoined UNESCO, which now is control of US Real Estate and is working to eliminate property rights in the United States

I waited and saw:

$20 million annually for "Strategic Milk Reserve." Was phased out in 1999 by the 1996 Freedom to Farm Act. Congress extended it temporarily, and then made it permanent again in the farm bill that President Bush signed into law.

I waited and saw:

National Institute of Health to spend $24 million on a retirement facility for chimpanzees.

I waited and saw:

$165 billion deficit for fiscal 2002. I waited and saw:

$1.3 billion in military assistance and $655 million in economic assistance for Egypt. (2001) $2-billion in foreign-aid to Egypt. (2002)

I waited and saw:

$40 million in foreign-aid to the Taliban government of Afghanistan (May, 2001).

I waited and saw:

Planning to give Social Security to Mexican citizens in Mexico.

This is just the beginning of what I've already seen. It's more than enough for me.

Hank

30 posted on 12/27/2002 12:41:00 PM PST by Hank Kerchief
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Hank Kerchief
Yep, Bush is governing like a Democrat.
31 posted on 12/27/2002 12:44:26 PM PST by Sparta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Happy2BMe
Always a glass half-full, are you?

In case you haven't noticed, there is a good possibility we will be at war within the month. I do not think divisive issues such as English-only are what is needed at this time. Besides, that is about 1000 on my list of priorities.

In a few months, if we are not locked in a duel to the death with North Korea and Iraq, I would imagine you will see some judges, the PBA, increased border patrols, and some additional tax cuts. Some of the issues you mentioned were never in the Republican platform, and unless there is a groundswell of public clamoring for them, they are not going to happen.

George Bush TOLD you what he stood for. Just because you voted for him, doesn't mean he will adopt all of your favorite policies. I myself would like to see a requirement that all American students pass a test on the Constitution and the history of this country. I can make a case for why this is a good idea. However, I do not think it is going to happen, and I won't hold the President responsible for not backing it.

He is doing what he said he would. Anything else that I also like is gravy.

32 posted on 12/27/2002 12:45:04 PM PST by Miss Marple
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Hank Kerchief
"I waited and saw:

National Institute of Health to spend $24 million on a retirement facility for chimpanzees."

Politicians finally have their own retirement home!

"I waited and saw:

Planning to give Social Security to Mexican citizens in Mexico."

Wait another six months and they will not only have S.S., but all the rest of the cake as well.

33 posted on 12/27/2002 12:46:19 PM PST by Happy2BMe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Hank Kerchief
Stop trying to confuse the issue with facts.
34 posted on 12/27/2002 12:48:20 PM PST by thepitts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

Comment #35 Removed by Moderator

To: paul544
I agree.

I don't mind vanities, IF they are more than idle speculation and present information in a FACTUAL fashion, instead of the author just spewing his opinions as though that was enough for credibility.

I wish the owners of this site would require in vanity posts, that the author provide references, supporting opinions, footnotes, or at least what you would expect to see in your average high school english report.

What we have are a lot of editorialists, thinking that their opinions matter as much as those from highly credible sources. They forget that those sources are fact-checked on a daily basis.

36 posted on 12/27/2002 12:52:06 PM PST by BuddhaBoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Miss Marple
"George Bush TOLD you what he stood for. Just because you voted for him, doesn't mean he will adopt all of your favorite policies."

I have been voting Republican since 1972.

Reagan did what he said he would do.

It is hard for me to compare Bush with Reagan - he just does'nt have the guts Reagan had.

And by the time the PC crowd is content with whittling away the constituional rights and liberties Americans once had in this country, it will take much more than another Ronald Reagan to get them back.

37 posted on 12/27/2002 12:53:35 PM PST by Happy2BMe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Brian_Baldwin
My dad used to say, "worry about the things you have control over and stop wasting time worrying about thing you cannot control".

You better worry about all those stimulating refreshments you are taking. ;)

38 posted on 12/27/2002 12:54:09 PM PST by G.Mason
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Radicalgranny
" If this administration was really concerned about terriorism they would have closed the borders instantly."

The obvious is always spoken last.

39 posted on 12/27/2002 12:55:30 PM PST by Happy2BMe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Brian_Baldwin
Is your junior high on Christmas break?
40 posted on 12/27/2002 7:04:19 PM PST by Drango
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brian_Baldwin; All
Anyone who believes bush is a conservative is living in a draeamland!

The reason he is appointing an hispanic is to show those 3,000,000 illegals that he deserves their votes because he helped them gain citizenship in spite of their breaking the law!

How about an "overview" of his "conservative" agenda?:

1. $782,000,000,000 of NEW spending of OUR money!

2. 2. Let's not forget his violation of his oath to uphold the Constitution by signing the CFR!

3. The agenda that has given us the mis-named obscenity called the p.a.t.r.i.o.t. act and, of course, the fatherland, oops, excuse me, the "homeland" security law.
I suggest all of you remember these two words "critical infrastructure" because you'll be hearing about them in the future. These words also apply to the internet and are in the "homeland"law

Once again, a violation of his oath!

4. The agenda that calls for giving amnesty and citizenship to 3,000,000 illegals.

5. The agenda that hired Adm. Poindexter (a convicted liar)
to oversee a database on all Americans even to what they buy and where they buy it?

6. An agenda that declares an Axis of Evil, then picks and chooses who to go after, rather than all of them?
How many of you remember his comment at a news conference a couple of months ago, and I quote " You know, saddam tried to assassinate my dad 10 years ago" end quote. How much of this "make my day attitude" is influenced by his comment?
Keep in mind, I make no accusation as I'm just thinking out loud. It would have not entered my mind if he had not made the statement.
I bring this up because we are going after only one of the axis of evil. I know, I know, in the last couple of days he's been sword rattling against n. korea, but. that is only in very recent days.

7. An agenda that wines and dines muslims at the White House, a group who refuses to condemn murdering civilians, but, gives a strong reprimand to a dumb statement by one of his own party?

8. The agenda that embraced the democrat's "education" policy?

9. The agenda that embraced the democrat's position of placing 50,000+ new employees on the the gov't payroll (read, our backs)?

Is this a conservative agenda?

Please don't say that he took these issues from the dems, because if you use that argument, you are saying dupliciy is acceptable when your guys do it, but, bad when the other guy's guys do it. If you use that argument then you are no better then the clinton's apologists who defended the indefensible.

You are either a man or woman of principle or you are not!

Bush is a clever politician, no more, no less, and like all politicians, he is not to be trusted without reservation.

If the slimeball clinton has done all of this, all of you party loyalists would be all over him and rightly so, as would I.

There is no difference in the parties other than a matter of degrees, which is to say, the dems would do us in (and they are up-front about wanting big gov't) on a faster pace than the republicrats who use the "salami" approach or one slice at a time. the speed at which we lose our freedoms and liberties doen't matter because the result is the same.

Flame away.


FReegards



41 posted on 12/28/2002 6:29:01 AM PST by poet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: poet
The reason he is appointing an hispanic is to show those 3,000,000 illegals that he deserves their votes....

You should have stopped your post after that sentence because the rest is meaningless. If 3,000,000 votes are, in fact, up for grabs and all or most go to the Democrats, then the Conservative agenda and the Republican Party will wither on the vine. The illegal aliens of today will, in the future, make or break a major political party.

42 posted on 12/28/2002 8:53:42 AM PST by Consort
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Jimer
"You should have stopped your post after that sentence because the rest is meaningless"

The purpose of the overview was to show those that believe that President Bush is the savior of conservatism is simply not true. We'll get thrown a "nugget" occasionally and fall into the false hope once again while the liberal democratic agenda gets passed in watered down versions. The repubs lost their conservative oars long ago and is nothing more than rudderless clones of the dems. They eat their own, they copy liberal social programs, they appoint "moderates" and, most importantly, don't seem to handle leadership well when it is handed to them. They should challenge, not cower for favor.

Why haven't they said anything about that senator who lauded bin laden? They should do to her what was done to Newt, Livingston and the idiot Lott, which is to say, barrage the public with what she said. Bush chatised Lott severly publicly, but, what has he said about Murray? Are they afraid they'll lose votes because she's female?

They should point out true differences if they are indeed different. They know that those who promise the most get the votes.

FReegards
43 posted on 12/28/2002 9:20:36 AM PST by poet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson