Posted on 07/02/2005 3:32:17 PM PDT by colonel mosby
You are sweet!
Which is exactly how we got (In)Justice Souter. No thanks...
the infowarrior
Which is exactly how we got (In)Justice Souter. No thanks...
the infowarrior
Yes ... she ... would.
LOL. That's right you didn't. That's because they weren't. ;-)
Seriously, Mark Levin is brilliant, rightfully angry at times (and that is what we need), and very much into living the Constitution and following the Founders' wishes. I really think if you are going to refer to him as you did, you should read his book, "Men In Black".
From Amazon.com: Conservative talk radio host, lawyer, and frequent National Review contributor Mark R. Levin comes out firing against the United States Supreme Court in Men in Black, accusing the institution of corrupting the ideals of America's founding fathers. The court, in Levin's estimation, pursues an ideology-based activist agenda that oversteps its authority within the government.
Have a great weekend.
Brilliant -- apparently you haven't read Janice Brown's extensive writings on strict constructionism. You should.
Do your homework & you will see that what you've written above has no basis.
Similarly, what Gonzales HAS written is extremely troubling.
Again, please do your homework.
If Bush wants to nominate a qualified hispanic Jurist, he can nominate the reliably conservative Emilio Garza, on U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit.
Here is my take - Bush knows that he HAS to nominate a CONSERVATIVE NOW or he will LOSE HIS CHANCE as Reagan lost his in the Bork nomination.
The Democrats have already shown their unreasoning and unrelenting obstructionism on John Bolton and many other qualified nominees. Bush plays poker, and he knows that the key to winning is having a winning hand when the other guy puts all their chips down. well, the Democrats will have to move their chips in if Luttig is the nominee - they *will* filibuster, and we *will* bust up the obstructionist game with the 'consitutional option', to save the USSC, the circuit nominees, and the next "John Bolton" to come in the Liberal crosshairs.
Luttig is the choice. He will be sworn in by October 10th, 2005.
How do you spell "Kiss of Death"?
It's more than that.
Gonzalez, a former Democrat and moderate that Bush has personal relationship with, argued for Bush to back down on opposing the U Mich racial quotas, is friendly towards affirmative action, has never shown any concern with Roe V Wade and other rulings on social issues. I've seen nor heard anything from him that he shares our concerns over judicial activism.
It's well known that anyone or anything not explicitly conservative ends up becoming liberal when exposed to Washington DC for a long time. Given his track record, we can expect no better from him that what we got from
O'Connor, and risk even worse.
Stevens, Souter and Brennan were picked by Republicans. In all three cases, the nominees weren't properly vetted ideologically. This is a similar case.
Far better for us to pick a sitting Federal Judge, a known quantity rather than a judicial 'pig in a poke'.
Good point!!! The more the Liberals salivate over Gonzalez, the more I know he's the wrong nominee - keep him as AG.
Bush has made outstanding choices so far and he's told us what kind of Supreme Court justice he likes. I trust him not to screw this one up.
That's the wrong strategy, I think. I say nominate Brown, Owen or Pryor. If they try to filibuster, it will be a piece of cake to convince Graham and Dewine (given their melted phone lines I think it will take even less) that they should go nuclear. Remember that those three are specifically mentioned in the gang of 14 agreement.
I've read several of her articles, though not all. You can't really tell from a scholarly article how a judge is going to rule on a particular issue. They deliberately write them that way so that you won't be able to tell. I'm a lawyer, and even I can't tell.
And I am particularly worried that she may be inclined to throw out the death penalty. When she was working for Wilson (yes, she was appointed by a RINO), she expressed some misgivings about whether Wilson should implement the death penalty on a case that was coming up for a decision by him. She ducked the question by contending that it was purely a decision to be made by the executive. Even though she ultimately declined to make any recommendation, Wilson issued the order to execute the prisoner anyway.
So, she is apparently to the left of Wilson, at least on that issue.
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.