Before voting on Roberts, insist on second nominee

Houston Chronicle ^ | September 8, 2005 | JAMES E. COLEMAN JR. and ERWIN CHEMERINSKY

[airborne]

They get sillier every day.

[Cincinatus' Wife]

But look what happened when they blocked conservative news - Internet, talk radio and cable!!! The Left bloodied themselves by denying us our voice.

[Cincinatus' Wife]

The Left dreams up laws where there aren't any.

[USS Alaska]

You are so right on... Janice Rogers Brown, a woman, a black and a moderate :)

Wouldn't the commies on the left just soil their depends if GWB does nominate her.

[Grand Old Partisan]

All seven Justices who voted for the Dred Scott decision were Democrats; the two dissenters were Republicans.

[Maeve]

You know...warning: this is a fantasy post I suppose: I wish President Bush would just close the book on the way the Supreme Court has been appointed in the past. I'd like him to appoint someone as Justice that would just drive everyone on the left nuts and all the beaurocrats insane. So -- with disbelief suspended for a moment -- I'd like him to appoint Bishop T.D. Jakes (of the Potter's House in Dallas) to the Supreme Court, and then to announce his intention to appoint ordinary Americans who have done extraordinary things for the nation and who have a clear understanding of the original intent of the Constitution -- which is not a living document. (And just to be preachy, I'd like him to add there is only one living word and that's Jesus. But I know that will only happen in my increasingly evangelistic and strident Catholic dreams.)

[moog]

No, the right question is simply that on my tagline. Even if Republican Senators will easily vote for him, I hope he will get a clear line of action in Court. But I'm afraid of the "precedents" (Kenney and Souter).

Interesting. I actually think he will be a decent justice. But there seemed to be one conservative group opposing him because of the work he did on a gay-rights case. BTW--it that your real name or from somewhere else? It's got a 'ring' to it.

[wita]

I suppose you could call what they wrote, thinking.

[Robert A Cook PE]

The law and the Constitution be damned.

Here, Houston's liberal editorial writers very blatantly admit that their (liberal) judicial picks WILL ALWAYS vote their liberal ideas and international socialist agenda, NOT the actual law or the facts of each case.

[mombonn]

Before voting on Roberts, insist on second nominee

This isn't horse trading!

I wonder if these dudes would be insisting on this if clintbilly was in charge.

[Cincinatus' Wife]

Perhaps planning is a better word.

[playball0]

Hard to believe this guy is a professor. There is no reasoning to support his premise. His argument is basically, "I don't like conservatives, the American people shouldn't like conservatives, my head will explode if another conservative is appointed, so don't do it."

Please give this guy remedial reasoning or fire his sorry ass and revoke his tenure

[Robert A Cook PE]

The miraculous wisdom of the Founding Father's is proved again!

[alessandrofiaschi]

If clintbilly had been in charge... well, they wouldn't have any doubt!

[Nephi]

Conservatives should vote against Roberts as CJ. Passing over two known conservatives to name a stealth as CJ is infuriatingly arrogant.

[Grand Old Partisan]

President Bush should clear his nominees with you, so as not to be "infuriatingly arrogant".

Yes, I am being sarcastic.

[joe fonebone]

which part of "if you win the election, you get to appoint judges" don't these people understand?

[Common Tator]

Some of us labor under the delusion that lawyers are bound by the truth and want to follow the law.

Lawyers primarily exist to manipulate the law so juries find guilty people not quilty.

Their primary job function is to so manipulate the truth that you will believe the lies and reject the truth. Expecting a lawyer's opinion piece to be grounded in truth depends on the lawyer rejecting years of study and training.

If all lawyers did was express the truth they could learn to do that in a week. It takes well over half a decade to become a skilled lawyer.

[KarlInOhio]

Replacing Byron White, one of the only two justices to dissent on Roe v Wade, with ultraliberal Ruth Bader Ginsburg was no problem. Replacing moderate O'Connor with someone even slightly conservative is a huge problem. The ratchet of liberalism must work in only one direction.

[Nephi]

Perhaps your senility kept you out of the loop recently, but conservatives expressed serious doubt about Roberts' conservatism when he was nominated as an associate justice. Now, Bush has passed over Scalia to name Roberts as SJ? (This is after Bush threw the "new tone" aside to slap down conservatives who had been warning Bush against naming Al "La Raza" Gonzales to the court.)

This isn't about Bush's right to name "his" justice. This isn't about my right to participate in a formerly conservative forum for discussion. This is about the future of the court and the future of the country.

Sorry to wake you.