Posted on 09/08/2005 1:52:07 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
It is the president's place to mold the court.
I'm sure these same law professors twist the meaning of separation of church and state.
This sort of little girl happy crap is the reason I no longer spend good money to buy the Houston Chronicle
It's good to know how the opposition thinks.
"Forget elections, forget the Constitution, just let us have our way" said the Democrats.
Since diversity is the most important thing in the world Bush should nominate Janice Rogers Brown.
Or Michael Luttig...
"Democrats need to make clear that since President Bush has already picked a conservative in Roberts for one vacancy, the other selection needs to be a more moderate Republican in the mold of O'Connor."
Republicans need to make clear that since President Bush won two national elections he can pick whomever he pleases.
I apologize to all and sundry that these two law professors who (perhaps deliberately) do not understand constitutional law, are from my state. There are some folks here including some laymen, who understand the Constitution better than these two shills for the Democrats.
Congressman Billybob
Latest column: "The Constitution is Finished: Not the US One, the Atlanta One"
Pick the youngest and most conservative and smartest strict constitutionalist he can find. So that person stays on long after Justice Stevens and Ginsberg are taking dirt naps.
So by their logic, no Supreme Court justice who disagreed with the Dred Scott decision should have been confirmed since 1857.
Interesting that these law professors at Duke University in Durham, North Carolina, publish their liberal opinion in a Texas newspaper. Their lawyerer opinion is not sanctioned in the Constitution that I, a non-lawyer, have read and understand.
Democrats, and these law professors should read Federalist No. 66:
It will be the office of the President to NOMINATE, and, with the advice and consent of the Senate, to APPOINT. There will, of course, be no exertion of CHOICE on the part of the Senate. They may defeat one choice of the Executive, and oblige him to make another; but they cannot themselves CHOOSE, they can only ratify or reject the choice of the President. They might even entertain a preference to some other person, at the very moment they were assenting to the one proposed, because there might be no positive ground of opposition to him; and they could not be sure, if they withheld their assent, that the subsequent nomination would fall upon their own favorite, or upon any other person in their estimation more meritorious than the one rejected. Thus it could hardly happen, that the majority of the Senate would feel any other complacency towards the object of an appointment than such as the appearances of merit might inspire, and the proofs of the want of it destroy.
Very odd.
Under the Constitution, the Senate, not just a minority party, has no right to "insist" on anything this way.
Being a minority party, the Democrats have no power to insist on this, even if they had the right.
It's no reflection on your state.
I think we all know these two professors understand Constitutional Law quite well; they just don't like it.
I just looked it up in my liberal Constitution and found the package deal clause in the penumbra - right next to the privacy clause and fairly near the discussion of trimesters.
The American people have spoken! When our citizenry voted him into office they entrusted President Bush (not Kerry, not Dean, not anyone else) with the decision of who gets nominated.
True enough but I'll be damned if I'm going to pay for it
Oh, I'm sure they like it all right if/when it's a democrat president appointing a liberal. A-holes.
I don't think so. Roberts does not believe in the "Lost Constitution" doctrine (Scalia and Thomas). Instead, he says, "I don't have an overarching, uniform philosophy.", which means that he will respect the Congress as well as a lot of precedents. In short, he will not help the other conservative members of the Supreme Court, to reject "affirmative action" and abortion. On many issues (apart from business ones), he will agree with Kennedy. Which is not very conservative...
And after the demonrats have insisted on this... they will insist that the President provide them with his "potential nominees" to replace each existing SCOTUS justice should they die or quit their position!
It is about time to post the whining baby symbol of the Demonrats yet again!
allow me to reiterate what C's Wife said, Roberts is unquestionably more conservative than O'connor. that is a given. Upon what do you base your understanding of Roberts' judicial philosophy, ALessandro?
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.