Posted on 09/10/2005 9:27:57 AM PDT by Theodore R.
Good advice Pat. Too bad you've burned all your bridges with the President.
Pat is freaking bipolar. One day he wants Bush impeached, the next day this.
This second nomination will define the truth behind President Bush.
Roberts was a good - but milquetoast - selection. Very reasonable and the perfect (IMHO) choice for a calm collected SCOTUS. He will (should)judge by law.
This second nomination though willrequire Bush to show some "intestinal fortitude" and put a justice in that can counteract the years of the socialist oligarchy now running SCOTUS and all the other federal courts in America.
If Bush really had some cojones, he would just erase all the outlying federal district courts run by a multitude of demigods who call themselves "MASTERS". - they were NOT authorized by the constitution.
Won't. Alas, it just isn't in his nature.
I can't remember the last Republocrat who actually grew a pair and did the right thing.
Very true ....
I would rather see Pres. Bush nominate another Bork.
Let the Rats go absolutley frothing-at-the-mouth-nutso, let the senate deny the noiminee, THEN nominate another Scalia.
Wasn't Pat calling for the President to be impeached? Now he thinks he has a say in the Court? Interesting.
Was Pat talking Judicial appointments--or Dissaster relief?
If Judicial appointments then from what I've seen having a
former clerk of the Late Chief Justice ,one who we presume
shared much of Justice Rhenquists beliefs. Seems an appropriate decision.Thus I must disagree with Pat that it
seems a sign of weakness. If he is talking dissaster relief
and the decision to pull Brown back to D.C. then why introduce that by speaking of Judicial appointments? The Only litmus test for any Judge ought be his/her/it's desire to adminster justice according to the Oath administered and recorded in Marbury v. Madison. And if that Judge intends and is determined to interpret the Law
according to how man made law is reconciled to the Divine Law (as Wilson,and Hamilton and others who followed Blackstone believed we ought.)If our Law is not to be
interpreted according to the Clear language used and the intent of htose who wrote the document (as opposed to how it
now seems done --according to the wim of the corrupt judiciary) then it is not law but despotism and evil.
Pat is right this time. I've been in disagreement with him especially with his isolationist stance concerning Iraq and the War on Terror. I think the President will stand true to form, he will nominate a conservative. I think the President needs to go further and stand up to "them" not just on this issue but with words. I recommend he begin this by firing his Press Secretary, he is horrible and whoever is behind the scenes that is advising the President on how to present himself should be sent to the showers also. There is no reason for the President not to take a leadership stance starting with putting the shameful democrats and goodtime Republicans in their place. Leadership is just not taking a beating its also knowing how to speak ones mind. We need a Jeremiah who know's how to speak his mind because I don't know about you but I'm sick of the word parsing and the obsequious approach to governance. The opposition is a horrid ugly mass of hateful cretins and its about time the President stood up to them and knocked them down a few pegs.
What's the difference between a Bork and a Scalia?
I think the author has it wrong. Bush didn't nominate Roberts so fast to distract attention from the hurricane, he did it to ensure 9 justices on the bench for the upcoming term.
My guess is if you look through those cases to be decided the administration has a significant hand in many of them.
What's the difference between a Bork and a Scalia?
Five Republican senators and a Republican Senate Majority.
If Bork had been nominated before 1986 senate elections he would be still would be on the SCOTUS.
Not too bad for Pat.
Actually, 1) Yes, the various District courts were constitutionally established; the Regress can (and did) establish them by law (''...and such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time establish.''), and 2) The president does not have the constitutional power to disband a court; that power rests, again, w/the Regress.
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.