Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Nominee May Come From Outside the Judiciary - (I hope President Bush doesn't take this bait!)
CNSNEWS.COM ^ | JULY 12, 2005 | SUSAN JONES, CnsNews Senior Editor

Posted on 07/12/2005 4:57:23 PM PDT by CHARLITE

The four senators who met with President Bush at the White House Tuesday morning discussed a number of potential Supreme Court nominees, but Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid said he thinks they've agreed not to name those names.

"We have a long ways to go," Reid (D-Nev.) told reporters after the breakfast meeting at the White House. He said President Bush has hundreds or thousands of names to go through and "he didn't give us any names."

Nevertheless, Reid added, "There were a lot of names discussed at the meeting, of which we're not going to talk about any of those names. I think that's an agreement that we have, and we'll stick by that."

[The names of women and Hispanics did come up, Sen. Patrick Leahy later told Fox News.]

Reid said there's been enough "discussion, debate and contention on judges." He said he hopes to avoid that scenario in the weeks ahead.

Reid said the friendly relationship between the chairman and ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee - Sens. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) and Pat Leahy (D-Vt.) -- have "set an example" of how Reid and Sen. Frist should get along.

"I feel comfortable and good that we are going to be able to have someone who is a consensus candidate. I certainly hope so," Reid concluded.

A consensus candidate is anyone acceptable to Democrats.

Diversity

Sen. Arlen Specter, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, called it a "very productive session," with President Bush listening to the "advice" offered by senators.

Specter said it's possible that the Supreme Court nominee will not come from the traditional circuit courts.

Speaking for himself, Specter said it "would be good to have some diversity" on the Supreme Court, and he mentioned the possibility of having a former senator on the court, as has happened in the past.

"That was one item that the president listened [to]," Specter said. The U.S. Constitution does not require a Supreme Court justice to be an attorney or a judge.

'Uniter'

Sen. Patrick Leahy, the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, called Tuesday's meeting with Bush a "first step" in the consultation process, and he also seemed to back the idea of selecting someone from outside the "judicial monastery."

Leahy said whoever the nominee is, it must be somebody who would "unite us and not divide us" and somebody who would garner bipartisan support.

"That would be a great thing to do for the integrity of the court, for the comfort level of the country, because after all, the court is there for every one of the 280 million Americans, not there for any special interest group on the right or the left."

Leahy called this an important decision, and he alluded to the possibility that there may be similar decisions ahead -- an oblique reference to the widely discussed possibility that Chief Justice William Rehnquist may also retire soon.

'Dignity'

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said senators made it "very clear" to the president that they're ready to engage in a "fair" process that "treats the nominee with dignity and respect and that will be conducted in a timely way."

Specter told reporters, "The word ought to go out that the special interest groups vastly overstate their influence" in the selection process; and that much of what they're doing is "counterproductive, and a lot of the times, insulting."

Frist said there's a general agreement that the goal is to have a nominee on the court by early October.

Sen. Reid told reporters there is no timeline for the president to name someone. "I would hope he would do it in the next couple of weeks," Reid said, adding that it's up to the president.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events; Philosophy; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 109th; bush; judicial; judiciary; negotiations; nominating; nominees; outside; process; scotus; selections; supremecourt
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-55 next last
We conservatives have a historical opportunity to place several of the finest jurors America has ever produced, onto the Supreme Court. Why would we consent to this Democrat idea of "going outside the judiciary" (nominating a Senator!) for new justices?
1 posted on 07/12/2005 4:57:25 PM PDT by CHARLITE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE

what about Ted Olson? i'd be happy with him and i believe he's a lawyer in private practice right now.


2 posted on 07/12/2005 4:58:41 PM PDT by avital2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE

I don't believe the prez will "consent" to anything the D's have to say.


3 posted on 07/12/2005 5:00:33 PM PDT by anniegetyourgun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE

Why are these people in GB's house? Can't he feed them at Dennys or something?


4 posted on 07/12/2005 5:00:44 PM PDT by CindyDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE

I can't even see the sun any more with all of the Dems'/MSM's trial balloons. The best part: W is going to pick whoever he d*mn well wants to. Hehehehe....


5 posted on 07/12/2005 5:00:45 PM PDT by eureka! (It will not be safe to vote Democrat for a long, long, time...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE

Yes, Bush needs to be careful, Specter is definitely a master baiter.


6 posted on 07/12/2005 5:00:50 PM PDT by NathanBookman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE

Congressman Billybob would be a good choice.


7 posted on 07/12/2005 5:04:41 PM PDT by Tax-chick (No! I don't want a socialist muffin in a boat!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tax-chick

outside the judiciary ?
ex-Sen. Fred Thompson


8 posted on 07/12/2005 5:10:13 PM PDT by stylin19a (Suicide bomber ??? "I came to the wrong jihad")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE

There are plenty of fine potential nominees in academia and in private practice.

But this is all noise by the Democrats. Remember that one of their "knocks" against "Borked" DC Circuit nominee Miguel Estrada was that he didn't have judicial experience yet? (Never mind that he had stellar law school-, judicial clerkship-, Justice Dept., and private-practice experience.)

If the pool of SCOTUS nominees most feared by these Dems were instead academics and other non-judges, we'd be hearing them repeat now what they said in Borking Estrada: Oh, we need someone with solid on-the-bench experience, yes yes, harrrumph! instead of this disingenuous, Oh we need someone outside the legal monastery, hm yes harrumph!


9 posted on 07/12/2005 5:10:42 PM PDT by pogo101
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE

Well, if we must...Robert Bork, Mark Levin, Laura Ingraham, Ann Coulter...


10 posted on 07/12/2005 5:12:08 PM PDT by pookie18 (Clinton Happens...as does Dr. Demento Dean, Bela Pelosi & Benedick Durbin!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE

I would not be upset if he picked Fred Thompson.


11 posted on 07/12/2005 5:13:56 PM PDT by mware ("God is dead" -- Nietzsche........ "Nope, you are"-- GOD)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stylin19a

Former Sen. Thompson would probably make a fine Justice, and he'd probably sail through confirmation, but he'd be 63 by then (born August '42), so there are more tempting nominees in terms of length-of-legacy.


12 posted on 07/12/2005 5:14:47 PM PDT by pogo101
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Tax-chick
Congressman Billybob would be a good choice.

I could certainly get behind that!

13 posted on 07/12/2005 5:14:56 PM PDT by Bahbah (Something wicked this way comes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: stylin19a

I'm with you. Fred has an 86% lifetime record with the ACU. He is also pretty popular with the general public.


14 posted on 07/12/2005 5:15:48 PM PDT by mware ("God is dead" -- Nietzsche........ "Nope, you are"-- GOD)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE

Why? Ann Coulter or David Limbaugh would be just fine.


15 posted on 07/12/2005 5:23:48 PM PDT by LS (CNN is the Amtrak of news)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stylin19a
outside the judiciary ?

John Ashcroft.

16 posted on 07/12/2005 5:26:15 PM PDT by Echo Talon (http://echotalon.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: stylin19a

Senator Fred THOMPSON (R)
Tennessee
2000 Score - 92
Previous Year's Score - 84
Lifetime Score - 86
Years of Service - 7


Property Rights, S. 625 (Roll Call Vote No. 3).
The Senate voted to kill an amendment overriding local owner-tenant laws and permitting delinquent tenants to remain in occupancy during bankruptcy proceedings.
The bill was defeated (54-43)
ACU supported this bill
This member voted in support of ACU's position


Education Savings Accounts - Passage, S. 1134 (Roll Call Vote No. 33).
The Senate passed a bill allowing families to save up to $2,000 per child annually tax free for educational expenses in public or private school. The bill also would extend a tax exemption for employee-provided education expenses.
The bill was defeated (61-37)
ACU supported this bill
This member voted in support of ACU's position


Tax Cuts, S.Con.Res. 101 (Roll Call Vote No. 68).
The Senate defeated an amendment deleting all tax cuts in the Congressional Budget Resolution.
The bill was defeated (44-56)
ACU opposed this bill
This member voted in support of ACU's position


Fiscal 2001 Budget Resolution - Adoption, H.Con.Res. 290 (Roll Call Vote No. 79).
The Senate adopted a five-year budget plan that includes $147.1 billion in tax cuts.
The bill was defeated (51-45)
ACU supported this bill
This member voted in support of ACU's position


Gas Tax Suspension - Cloture, S. 2285 (Roll Call Vote No. 80).
The Senate failed to limit debate on a bill that would suspend the 4.3 ¢/gallon federal gas tax surcharge from April 15 through Jan. 1, 2001. If the national average gas price reached $2/gallon, the remaining 14.1 ¢/gallon federal tax would also be suspen
The bill was defeated (43-56)
ACU supported this bill
This member voted in support of ACU's position


Marriage Penalty Tax - Cloture, HR 6 (Roll Call Vote No. 82).
The Senate failed to limit debate on an amendment that would essentially eliminate the federal tax penalty on married couples. 60 votes were needed.
The bill was defeated (53-45)
ACU supported this bill
This member voted in support of ACU's position


Education Policy, S. 2 (Roll Call Vote No. 90).
The Senate defeated an amendment that would further nationalize education policy in the U.S. by establishing standards and funding programs.
The bill was defeated (45-54)
ACU opposed this bill
This member voted in support of ACU's position


U.S. Troops in Kosovo, S. 2521 (Roll Call Vote No. 105).
The Senate killed an effort to impose limits on the deployment of ground troops in Kosovo beyond June 2001.
The bill was defeated (53-47)
ACU opposed this bill
This member voted in opposition to ACU's position


Federal Election Commission Nomination - Confirmation of Brad Smith (Roll Call Vote No. 107).
The Senate voted to confirm the nomination of Bradley A. Smith of Ohio to the Federal Election Commission. Smith is opposed to federal control of the political process.
The bill was defeated (64-35)
ACU supported this bill
This member voted in support of ACU's position


Strategic Nuclear Weapons Systems, S. 2549 (Roll Call Vote No. 119).
The Senate voted to restrict the ability of the president to dismantle existing strategic nuclear weapons systems.
The bill was defeated (51-47)
ACU supported this bill
This member voted in support of ACU's position


Campaign Finance Disclosures, S. 2549 (Roll Call Vote No. 122).
The Senate defeated an attempt to stop the Internal Revenue Service from requiring disclosure of the membership of certain political and policy organizations.
The bill was defeated (42-57)
ACU supported this bill
This member voted in opposition to ACU's position


Defense Spending, HR 4576 (Roll Call Vote No.126).
The Senate voted to kill an attempt to divert $1 million in defense spending into federal education programs.
The bill was defeated (83-15)
ACU opposed this bill
This member voted in support of ACU's position


Military Abortions, S. 2549 (Roll Call Vote No. 134).
The Senate voted to kill and amendment that would have provided abortions in military hospitals.
The bill was defeated (50-49)
ACU opposed this bill
This member voted in support of ACU's position


Hate Crimes, S. 2549 (Roll Call Vote No. 136).
The Senate voted to expand the definition of "hate crimes" and extend the role of the federal government in investigating and prosecuting them.
The bill was defeated (57-42)
ACU opposed this bill
This member voted in support of ACU's position


Ergonomic Standards, HR 4577 (Roll Call Vote No. 143).
The Senate voted for an amendment prohibiting the Occupational Safety and Health Administration from issuing regulations in the area of ergonomics.
The bill was defeated (57-41)
ACU opposed this bill
This member voted in support of ACU's position


Medicare Lockbox, HR 4577 (Roll Call Vote No. 163).
The Senate voted to create a Medicare and Social Security "lockbox, preserving year-to-year surpluses in these programs from use in other areas.
The bill was defeated (54-43)
ACU supported this bill
This member voted in support of ACU's position


Morning After Pill, HR 4577 (Roll Call Vote No. 169).
The Senate refused to kill an amendment stopping the use of federal funds to distribute the "morning after" pill on school grounds.
The bill was defeated (41-54)
ACU supported this bill
This member voted in support of ACU's position


Submarine Missile Program, S. 2549 (Roll Call Vote No. 177).
The Senate voted against an amendment that would have killed the Trident II submarine-launched missile program.
The bill was defeated (81-18)
ACU supported this bill
This member voted in support of ACU's position


Missile Defense System Testing, S. 2549 (Roll Call Vote No. 178).
The Senate killed an amendment that would have imposed unreasonable standards on the development of a national missile defense system.
The bill was defeated (52-48)
ACU supported this bill
This member voted in support of ACU's position


Estate Tax Repeal. HR 8 (Roll Call Vote No. 180).
The Senate voted down an amendment that would have maintained the "death" tax while easing its effect in some cases.
The bill was defeated (46-53)
ACU supported this bill
This member voted in support of ACU's position


Gas Tax Suspension, HR 8 (Roll Call Vote No. 183).
The Senate voted no to suspend the entire federal gas tax of 18.4 ¢/gallon for 150 days.
The bill was defeated (40-59)
ACU supported this bill
This member voted in support of ACU's position


Taxation of Social Security Benefits, HR 8 (Roll Call Cote No. 188).
The Senate voted to reduce the percentage of Social Security benefits that are taxable from 85 percent to 50 percent, which was the level up until 1993.
The bill was defeated (58-41)
ACU supported this bill
This member voted in support of ACU's position


Estate Tax Repeal - Passage, HR 8 (Roll Call Vote No. 197).
The Senate vote to phase out the "death" tax by 2010.
The bill was defeated (59-39)
ACU supported this bill
This member voted in support of ACU's position


National Monument Designations, HR4578 (Roll Call Vote No. 208).
The Senate defeated an amendment that would have prohibited the designation of national monuments without congressional approval.
The bill was defeated (49-50)
ACU supported this bill
This member voted in support of ACU's position


Prohibit Funds for Kyoto Treaty, HR4578 (Roll Call Vote No. 211).
The Senate passed the Interior Appropriations bill including a ban on the use of any of the money to implement the Kyoto "Global Warming" Protocol, which has never been submitted to the Senate for ratification.
The bill was defeated (97-2)
ACU supported this bill
This member voted in support of ACU's position


17 posted on 07/12/2005 5:27:39 PM PDT by mware ("God is dead" -- Nietzsche........ "Nope, you are"-- GOD)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE

If they do go outside the judiciary, I think I should get nominated.


18 posted on 07/12/2005 5:33:05 PM PDT by Duke Nukum (To thine own self be true...or relatively true. --Guy Caballero)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE

I don't have any problem with him selecting someone outside the judiciary. How about Mark Levin or Ann Coulter?


19 posted on 07/12/2005 5:38:05 PM PDT by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stylin19a

Where does Sen. Thompson stand on the 2nd Amendment?


20 posted on 07/12/2005 5:38:10 PM PDT by Tax-chick (No! I don't want a socialist muffin in a boat!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE

I'd rather have a non-lawyer who's commitment to upholding the Consitution has not been corrupted by law school and the legal profession.


21 posted on 07/12/2005 5:53:49 PM PDT by Paleo Conservative (Hey! Hey! Ho! Ho! Andrew Heyward's got to go!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stylin19a

please, please, please, please!!


22 posted on 07/12/2005 5:54:40 PM PDT by TNdandelion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Tax-chick

he's fine on the 2nd, not so fine on abortion. He also was one of the Senator that voted not to impeach Cinton.


23 posted on 07/12/2005 6:16:09 PM PDT by Coldwater Creek ("Over there, Over there, we will be there until it is Over there.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE

I'd love to see a straight-thinking, conservative engineer be appointed.


24 posted on 07/12/2005 6:18:11 PM PDT by MortMan (Mostly Harmless)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE

Steve Largent!!!

Oklahoma - Steve Largent - 97 Lifetime Rating


25 posted on 07/12/2005 6:21:04 PM PDT by RightFighter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE
Bush will make a fine selection. Conservatives have not yet opposed a single candidate he has named for any judicial position.

There has been a very rare whimper, but he's not disappointed us yet.

26 posted on 07/12/2005 6:23:00 PM PDT by Dog Gone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE
The U.S. Constitution does not require a Supreme Court justice to be an attorney or a judge.

It was this type of thinking that put Earl Warren on the court and lead to the start of the judicial tyranny that is still tearing the Republic apart. (Warren was a lawyer and prosecutor, but had never served as a judge.)

27 posted on 07/12/2005 6:25:30 PM PDT by wagglebee ("We are ready for the greatest achievements in the history of freedom." -- President Bush, 1/20/05)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE
Why would we consent to this Democrat idea of "going outside the judiciary" (nominating a Senator!) for new justices?

Because, this is nothing more and nothingless than good cop/bad cop. We're all getting screwed...but to us, it feels better when the pubs do it.

As long as the economy stays the same or grows moderately, we all feel something is really happening, while all the time, our rights are being eroded by those in power, be it pub or dem.

We drilling in anwar yet?

Smoke and mirrors.

FMCDH(BITS)

28 posted on 07/12/2005 6:30:58 PM PDT by nothingnew (I fear for my Republic due to marxist influence in our government. Open eyes/see)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dog Gone
... but he's not disappointed us yet.

Yeah, he has. McPain/Findgold is a major one. You think that was a "simple mistake"? Do you think any nomination to the Supremes won't go unchallenged by his buddies on the other aisle? Do you think there's a real difference between the parties?

We're the shmucks here. We're gettin' played by both sides.

BTW, have we started drilling in ANWAR yet?

FMCDH(BITS)

29 posted on 07/12/2005 6:44:46 PM PDT by nothingnew (I fear for my Republic due to marxist influence in our government. Open eyes/see)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: nothingnew

When did he nominate either McCain or Feingold to a judicial position?


30 posted on 07/12/2005 6:46:18 PM PDT by Dog Gone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Dog Gone
but Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid said he thinks they've agreed not to name those names.

But then he did.

And then he complained that the president just listened, didn't talk -- didn't share HIS choices with them.

And Reid said:

Officials familiar with the meeting said Reid was more blunt in private, telling Bush he didn't want to wind up reading about the president's eventual pick in the newspaper without having had a chance to offer his views beforehand.

Let's take a poll to see how many people think that's going to happen, okay?

Dems Leak Bush's Court Short List

31 posted on 07/12/2005 6:49:57 PM PDT by Howlin (Who is Judith Miller covering up for?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE
A consensus candidate is anyone acceptable to Democrats. "

I can't believe that sentence made it past the editors

32 posted on 07/12/2005 6:51:23 PM PDT by Mr. K
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stylin19a
ex-Sen. Fred Thompson

Unlikely. Thompson is the guy that have that'll make sure that nominee isn't Borked and is supposed to see the nominee through the process and around the pitfalls. Hard to do if he's the nominee. (Granted, Cheney interviewed potential VP picks and then became the VP pick, but that was different -- Cheney didn't have to guide himself through anything that anyone else wouldn't have had to do.)

TS

33 posted on 07/12/2005 6:54:07 PM PDT by Tanniker Smith (I didn't know she was a liberal when I married her.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: stylin19a

Tonight on Dom Giordano's show, Bill Sammon suggested Ann Coulter... I think that would be great...


34 posted on 07/12/2005 6:54:15 PM PDT by abner (Looking for a new tagline- Next outrage please!- Got it! PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS LOST IN THE USA!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Dog Gone
When did he nominate either McCain or Feingold to a judicial position?

I wasn't talking about "noms", I was talking about "disappointments".

Guess we're not on the same page.

BTW, are we drilling in ANWAR yet?

feh!...pfffft!

FMCDH(BITS)

35 posted on 07/12/2005 6:57:20 PM PDT by nothingnew (I fear for my Republic due to marxist influence in our government. Open eyes/see)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
Bush is going to do what he thinks is best. He'll play the political charade for the hell of it, and then he'll do what he wanted to do all along.

His whole political career, he's played the "inclusive card" and then done what he intended all along. When it's not to the liking of the far right wing, they scream sell-out. And the left-wing screams that it was a charade. The moderates and most conservatives think it's great.

It's been a winning strategy and he's been consistently doing it for as long as I've known him.

36 posted on 07/12/2005 7:02:15 PM PDT by Dog Gone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: nothingnew
Well, this thread was about judicial nominations, so I guess you're not even on the right thread, much less the same page.

BTW, drilling will begin in ANWR. There are existing rules about notification of applications for bids to lease, etc. If we're a nation of laws, those have to be observed or repealed and replaced with new ones.

37 posted on 07/12/2005 7:06:17 PM PDT by Dog Gone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE
I hope President Bush doesn't take this bait

Considering the fact that he doesn't have the brains of a big mouthed bass, it's hard to tell what bait he'll take!

38 posted on 07/12/2005 7:16:46 PM PDT by iconoclast (Conservative, not partisan..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant
I don't have any problem with him selecting someone outside the judiciary. How about Mark Levin or Ann Coulter?

Please, please, please FReepers.

Stop posting these Ann Coulter things without a smiley face.

39 posted on 07/12/2005 7:21:30 PM PDT by iconoclast (Conservative, not partisan..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: nothingnew

I've looked this up before, and today's composition of the court is unusually weighted toward the professional judge.

I want to say that there have traditionally been 5 career paths to the Supreme Court, all roughly equally used until recently, and I *think* they are:

1. Politics
2. Executive Branch
3. Private attorney (maybe includes law professor)
4. Federal court
5. State court

This was most recent position before confirmation, and many in one path had experience in another.

I'll have to sit down and actually do it again, but a cursory view of the CJ's is:

Executive branch: 4 (Marshall, Taney, Chase, Vinson)
Politics: 3 (Ellsworth, White, Warren)
Fed judge: 3 (Stone, Burger, Rehnquist)
Attorney: 1 (Jay)
State judge: 0
couldn't figure out: 5 (Rutledge, Fuller, Waite, Taft, Hughes)

Possibly all the ones in the last category were private attorneys.
Hughes: associate justice, 1910-16, presidential candidate, 1916, ? 1916-30.
Taft: US President, 1909-13, ? 1913-21

Nowadays it is difficult to appoint a sitting senator; it would require special legislation to lower the pay.

However the Fred Thompson idea is a good one.







40 posted on 07/12/2005 7:34:21 PM PDT by scrabblehack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE

Who did Schumer, Leahy, and Reid suggest...Barbara Streisand or Michael Moore? Consulting with evildoers who hate your guts is stupid.


41 posted on 07/12/2005 7:36:32 PM PDT by kittymyrib
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RightFighter

Steve was my congressman, back in Tulsa. In fact, that was his campaign slogan ... "Steve Largent ... I'm your Congressman!"

He's a dear man and would make a fine Justice, in my opinion. He ran one of the all-time room-temperature campaigns for governor, but that's irrelevant here :-).


42 posted on 07/12/2005 7:37:18 PM PDT by Tax-chick (No! I don't want a socialist muffin in a boat!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE
Ann Coulter has law credentials and is outside the judiciary.

She also has one additional advantage over both judges and senators: she's been living in the real world without the privileged status that judges and senators enjoy

43 posted on 07/12/2005 7:37:31 PM PDT by SauronOfMordor (The only difference between Charles Manson and Mohammad is that Manson killed fewer people)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mariabush

Thanks. I'm of the opinion that we'll need the 2nd Amendment most, in the next 10 years. (At least, I'm of that opinion late at night ... during the day, I'm less extreme :-).


44 posted on 07/12/2005 7:38:50 PM PDT by Tax-chick (No! I don't want a socialist muffin in a boat!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant

How about Kay Bailey Hutchinson?


45 posted on 07/12/2005 7:58:56 PM PDT by mysonsfuture
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: nothingnew
Thanks for the reply, nothingnew.

I'm standing by my preference for Brown and Luttig to replace O'Connor and Rehnquist, and the order isn't important. Either one would be stupendous as Chief Justice, or as Associate.

Ciao for now!....and greetings to The Lady Mary!

Char :)

46 posted on 07/12/2005 8:02:39 PM PDT by CHARLITE (I propose a co-Clinton team as permanent reps to Pyonyang, w/out possibility of repatriation....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant
My guess is that Prez Bush picks one of his dads newest and closest friends........Bill Clinton.

Folks, I don't think we are going to get anyone that we would really want. The minority Senate is about ready to run the show, namely because of our RINO's.
47 posted on 07/12/2005 8:20:14 PM PDT by ZRicochet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE

i STRONGLY believe that Supreme Court and other justices should NOT be atnys at all.

They need to be much closer to the people and much more familiar with life as man in the street.

There are wise, fair, knowledgeable people in all walks of life.

I think atnys should be limited in congress and the courts to less than 40% of their percentage of the population.

I'd love to see Dr Laura as a Supreme Court judge. Wheee!


48 posted on 07/12/2005 9:50:17 PM PDT by Quix (GOD'S LOVE IS INCREDIBLE . . . BUT MUST BE RECEIVED TO . . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tax-chick

know what you mean!!!!


49 posted on 07/13/2005 4:01:08 AM PDT by Coldwater Creek ("Over there, Over there, we will be there until it is Over there.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: ZRicochet

I do think that if we get another liberal justice (and I'm willing to give him a chance to show his stripes before I conclude he's a liberal), then the Republicans will be voted out in 2006. If the Dems run the show after that, the conservatives will be riding them hard, and will make them wish they were in the minority.


50 posted on 07/13/2005 4:20:56 AM PDT by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-55 next last

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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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