1 posted on
03/23/2004 5:13:35 AM PST by
kattracks
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21 next last
To: kattracks
Sweet! LOL
2 posted on
03/23/2004 5:14:08 AM PST by
Coop
("Hero" is the last four-letter word I'd use to describe John Kerry)
To: kattracks
I like it, but strictly speaking she only has to recuse herself if NOW is a party to the case.
3 posted on
03/23/2004 5:19:06 AM PST by
Salman
(Mickey Akbar)
To: kattracks
Wasn't she also a member of the ACLU?
So wouldn't she have to recuse herself from all cases of child pornography, seeing how the ACLU supports such?
5 posted on
03/23/2004 5:31:12 AM PST by
Sister_T
(Democrats AND The Partisan Press are the REAL enemies to freedom in the world!)
To: kattracks
You are the master of posters.
I feel like an im-poster by comparison.
6 posted on
03/23/2004 5:49:05 AM PST by
Enduring Freedom
(Guess How We Ended Japanese Kamikaze Attacks?)
To: kattracks
But if she recuses herself, how can she vote to continue abortions?</sarcasm>
7 posted on
03/23/2004 5:57:31 AM PST by
Blood of Tyrants
(Even if the government took all your earnings, you wouldn't be, in its eyes, a slave.)
To: kattracks
Yes Agnes, there is a God and He will show us the sweet truth. If you are good, the truth will set you free; if you are a Dim, it will condemn you.
8 posted on
03/23/2004 6:03:53 AM PST by
trebb
(Ain't God good . . .)
To: kattracks
Howcum we haven't seen this demand for recusal all over the news like the wall-to-wall coverage of the Scalia/Cheney hunting trip?
9 posted on
03/23/2004 6:17:46 AM PST by
Gritty
("Outlaws in black robes can take your American birthright, and that cannot be replaced-Cong Billybob)
To: kattracks
Another proud baby-killer. Sheesh.
11 posted on
03/23/2004 6:24:41 AM PST by
Aquinasfan
(Isaiah 22:22, Rev 3:7, Mat 16:19)
To: kattracks
bttt
12 posted on
03/23/2004 6:27:53 AM PST by
kcvl
To: kattracks
Gotta love these guys and gals. Republicans with intestinal fortitude, what a concept.
13 posted on
03/23/2004 6:29:41 AM PST by
jwalsh07
(We're bringing it on John but you can't handle the truth!)
To: kattracks
Good post, and a nice catch.
But as long as I'm dreaming about this coming true, can I wish for a pony too?
14 posted on
03/23/2004 6:29:46 AM PST by
Colonel_Flagg
("Broadly speaking, the short words are the best, and the old words best of all." - Winston Churchill)
To: kattracks
Whoa... some GOPers taking Hardball 101 classes?
I like it!
Dan
15 posted on
03/23/2004 6:31:11 AM PST by
BibChr
("...behold, they have rejected the word of the LORD, so what wisdom is in them?" [Jer. 8:9])
To: kattracks
Great find! Thanks.
We all know this will get the same media attention as the Scalia/Cheney duck hunt recusal demand. ;-)
17 posted on
03/23/2004 6:37:28 AM PST by
RottiBiz
To: kattracks
Hmmmm. Could
this possibly be what's behind Scalia recusing himself from the POA case????
There has been a lot of puzzling over why he would knowingly speak before the KoC about a case that was pending, forcing himself to recuse.
Did he deliberately do so in order to set peer precedent and put pressure on Ginsburg to do so on abortion?
If so, it would be a stroke of pure genius.
18 posted on
03/23/2004 6:40:49 AM PST by
LTCJ
(Gridlock '05 - the Lesser of Three Evils.)
Bttt
21 posted on
03/23/2004 7:37:10 AM PST by
DoctorMichael
(The Fourth Estate is a Fifth Column!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)
To: kattracks
Scalia recently wrote about the ethical requirements for Supreme Court justices when asked to recuse themselves. It's not at all the same as for other federal judges, who sit on large panels and have substitutes available.
If a Supreme Court justice recuses himself, he's effectively denying one side a vote that cannot be had from any other source.
Therefore, Supreme Court justices don't recuse themselves to avoid the appearance of impropriety, but only actual impropriety.
To: kattracks
Yet libs want to through the book at Scalia for being friends with Cheney.
24 posted on
03/23/2004 9:09:37 AM PST by
Blue Scourge
(Off I go into the Wild Blue Yonder...)
To: kattracks
We've already learned that SC justices don't have to do the recusal thing.
25 posted on
03/23/2004 9:09:40 AM PST by
Wolfie
To: kattracks
BUMP
To: kattracks
Harrumph.
They ought to be impeaching the loathsome harridan, not "asking" her to do anything.
28 posted on
03/23/2004 5:25:25 PM PST by
dsc
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21 next last
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson