Posted on 08/12/2005 12:18:19 AM PDT by goldstategop
This is a tautology.
There is really no other legal justification for discrimination against homosexuals.
I don't want them teaching in schools or churches. That's just one example.
I completely disagree with your characterization of Bill Pryor.
Under the original interpretation of the First Amendment, the State of Alabama has every right to declare itself a Baptist enclave (for example). The Federal government has NO POWER to interfere with free association or free exercise in that regard. Nor can you advocate allowing convocation of homosexuals and simultaneously support a man who ruled against the same on religious grounds.
They are all serving now, except for Miguel Estrada.
Those recess appointments end soon. The process legitimized the filibuster.
Oh no. He helped WIN ... did I mention that he won ... a case. You know, he's probably just a closet gay anyway hiding behind a cloak of conservatism so he doesn't have to face his own problems. And he's Catholic! His second choice was probably to be a priest, and you know about THOSE guys - every last one of them is just a wolf in sheep's clothing.
The President is empowered by the constitution with right to nominate judges to the federal bench. I do not believe in opposing nominees for ideological reasons. The people elect a president knowing full well the power of the office in this regard. These ridiculous attacks by the left trying to affect the right are sad on their part, and sadder on the part of conservatives who buy their nonsense. Apologies to Ann Coulter, but she can't be right all the time.
I'm not sold on Roberts by any means, but come on!
Coulter's last column boiled down to this:
1. Souter made clearly had a strong opposition to abortion.
2. Clarence Thomas clearly had a strong opposition to abortion.
3. Roberts level of opposition to abortion is not clear.
4. Therefore, Roberts is almost certain to be just like Souter.
Huh? OK, fess up: Who damaged the reasoning center of Ann's brain? She's usually pretty good at basic logic.
I would like to feel better about this guy, but the idea that he's Souter just because he's not Janice Rogers Brown is pretty darn silly and the hysteria isn't helping.
Rudman's involvement should have set off alarms to Bush the Elder if he was really intent on naming a conservative to the Court.
Though I loathe ethnic and gender based appointments (O'Connor), Bush I could have named the first Hispanic in Emilio Garza, or another woman in Edith Jones (??? not so sure if I've got the name right for her), but instead continued the sad Republican tradition of getting Sup Court nominations wrong more often than they get them right.
Not a court appointee.
Bill Pryor doesn't get my vote as a conservative.
Because of his stand re:stare decicis? Or, do you have other issues with him?
Because of his stand re:stare decicis? Or, do you have other issues with him?
Thus Pryor's ruling against Judge Moore in support of an obviously fabricated interpretation of the establishment clause, in favor of crushing the obvious meaning of both the free exercise clause as well as the intent of the First Amendment as a whole, both relies upon a bogus selective incorporation doctrine and defers unnecessarily to stare decisis to the point of obsequiousness.
I want judges with the courage to rule on the law as written and as intended when passed or ratified. If there is a substantial group who wants that law changed, let them enlist the support to amend the Constitution.
Your point about who past Republicans appointed is missing one thing: George W. Bush. His past judicial appointments have been stellar, yet Coulter and some conservatives insist on dwelling on what other people did in other times involving other nominees. Roberts is not a Souter or an O'Connor or a Thomas or a Scalia, etc. He's a Roberts.
Do you not think that GWB is accutely aware of what happened with past nominees?
Finally, I have said nothing which could lead you to believe that I
"WISH anything bad upon people like ANN COBURN" or you.
It's that very kind of conclusion that you jumped to that is leading you to wring your hands over the Roberts nomination.
And yes, Coulter was quite nasty to the president in her columns. I know it's her style, but she should learn to differentiate between her friends and her enemies. There are respectful ways of stating one's concerns.
Your concerns may be well-founded. This gentleman is not a social conservative, but a K-St. establishmentarian who will vote with the legal establilshment. NOTICE ONE THING: No position or thing he has ever done has been inconsistent with the advancement of his personal legal career. He has never risked blood in the arena. As T.S. Eliot once asked, "Do I dare to eat a peach?" Roberts, with his bloodless and gutless adherence to the S.Ct/Solicitor General mentality, will never dare to eat a peach. This is a Powell, not a Scalia. And possibly worse. Very much worse.
Farah is nothing but a barking moonbat.
Joseph Farah and Ann Coulter make valid points. I doubt Roberts will be a Souter, but he will certainly be no better than Rehnquist. I am not sure how I would vote if I were in the Senate, but Bush definitely could have done better.
Bump as a reminder
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.