Replies

This report in the black press shows zero understanding that preserving the Constitution is the basic fact of civil rights for all Americans, including African-Americans. Decisions which savage the Constitution to provide a temporary advantage in a single matter, are worst than merely dangerous. Ultimately, they will be fatal to the entire nation.

Black leaders like Dr. Thomas Sowell, are keenly aware of the need to preserve the Constitution itself for our posterity. Black writers like this author are supremely ignorant of that challenge. Therefore, writers like this have no clue as to what kind of Justices we need, to preserve the Constitution. (Hint: It isn't another O'Connor.)

Congressman Billybob

Latest column: "Replace Justice O'Connor -- But Which One?"

Some Senators are urging Bush to select a nominee who will enjoy broad bi-partisan support. They note that Sandra Day O’Connor was approved 99-0 in 1981, Anthony Kennedy, 97-0 in 1988, David Souter 90-9 in 1990, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, 96-3 in 1993 and Steven G. Breyer 87-9 in 1994, the last time there was a vacancy.

Funny that he left out Antonin Scalia, who was approved 98-0....

Judge bork was on the radio today.

He was talking about the ratchet effect.

When republicans control, they let respect for stare decisis protect status quo. When the left controls they move more to the left. When the right controls the new more left position is kept instead of being eliminated.

We need to accept the fact that in order make any shift in the court balance to mean anything we need judges who are ready to undo the left wing crap.

Bump. Thanks for this post.

For those of us who are deeply concerned with protection of Private Property from improper application of Eminent Domain in contravention of the Original Intent of the Founders in the 5th Amendment's Takings Clause, I am registering a warning or a concern:

I think AG (& potential USSC Nominee) Alberto Gonzales is very weak on Private Property Rights and lacks an understanding of orignainl intent of the 5th Amendment's Takings Clause (Eminent Domain) based both upon some cases when he ws at the texas Supreme Ct. (e.g., FM Properties Operating Co. v. City of Austin, 22 S.W.3d 868 (Tex. 2000))

and, more recently and significantly, upon his NOT having joined in the Kelo case on the side of property owner. My understanding ws that he had sided with the League of Cities against Kelo while WH Counsel.

As some have frequently observed, he certainly believes in a "Living Constitution" and is NOT a strict constructionist or an Originalist, but rather tends toward the Activist side, per National Review Online and others.

He has been sharply critical of Priscilla Owen in some Texas Supreme Ct. decisons when they were both on that Ct. as Justices, and he has been quoted as being sharply criticial fo Janice Rogers Brown, including being quoted by People for the American Way in their ultra-leftist propaganda.