More priceless observations here.
Posted on 09/16/2005 7:04:40 AM PDT by manny613
In our lifetime has there been a more politically poisonous Supreme Court decision than Roe v. Wade ? Set aside for a moment your thoughts on the substance of the ruling. (I happen to be a supporter of legalized abortion.) I'm talking about the continuing damage to the republic: disenfranchising, instantly and without recourse, an enormous part of the American population; preventing, as even Ruth Bader Ginsburg once said, proper political settlement of the issue by the people and their representatives; making us the only nation in the West to have legalized abortion by judicial fiat rather than by the popular will expressed democratically.
(Excerpt) Read more at jewishworldreview.com ...
[SNIP] Not that this in any way disqualifies Roberts in my conservative eyes
Does not compute.
Krauthammer's a "don't rock the boat" type of conservative. He'll criticize the left for trashing the culture and the constitution, but then endorse doing nothing about it because it might cause "social upheaval".
Liberals try to sound conservative and conservatives try to sound liberal when they are interviewed. Of course you can't go 100% by that, but you can't take anything at face value either. It's just a big joke.
In reality it is a neutral move. However, I still think it was a politically dumb move to change Roberts from O'Conner's replacement to Rehnquist. Roberts will make a great Chief Justice, but it now makes Bush's next appointment more difficult politically.
It is what it is. Roberts would have been alrigth as an O'Connor replacement, but he's not a step in the right direction as a Rehnquist replacement.
Yes. That's about right. I fail to see how the Constitution changes to fit Robert's comfort level, but that's just me.
i agree but I think Bush and crew had a chance for a slam dunk Chief -no questions and no problems so they took it.
The Dems (bork or whatever)will crush the next one
I think Bush should have given Scalia the Chief position. So what if he had to be confirmed. He's already a justice so what can they do? It would have been great to hear him speak, and then contrast that with Roberts.
You are absolutely right and I am positive if we would have been a fly in the room ,that Bush and Co. agree with you, BUT too many hearings -too many chances. Remember what Dems did as minority to UN representative and others. Scalia can't be recess appointment.
What many Bush supporters have never come to terms with is that Bush really thinks more like Roberts than he does Scalia or Thomas. Bush said he would nominate another Scalia or Thomas, but I don't think he ever really meant it. Look who he chose to represent him at his Convention. Bush is more "moderate" (a term often misused) than most people acknowledge. Somehow, if you talk conservative you can get away with governing more to the left. Bush is a big spender and he can be a social coward. I'm sorry, but that's the truth. We get great lines in speeches sometimes, but when it comes right down to it, he wants to "unite" more than he wants to be conservative of principled. Of course there is no such thing as uniting in our form of government. You have to settle for a majority. But too often, Bush will compromise way early, when with more courage he could win a majority with a conservative outcome. Reagan was never ashamed of being a conservative. He never ran from it. Bush and Roberts are alike in their acting ashamed of conservatism. If it is something even so-called proponents are ashamed of, then how can we expect to ever win?
One example of many: education. The NCLB Act was a prime example of Bush talking conservative, selling out to the liberals, and then acting like he should get some sort of credit from both sides. Just the opposite. He made both sides mad. It's impossible to please everyone, and those who think they can are just arrogant or naive or perhaps dishonest. That's why principles and honesty always trump pragmatism and evasiveness (and even the elusive unity goal), especially in a representative democracy.
I fully agree. Unfortunately, Kraut says he doesn't have a problem with this. I do. Having a "conservative" like Roberts get up and say in so many words that the Constitution doesn't really mean what it says is worse than having an avowed liberal do it. He's done damage even before getting on the court.
That's exactly it. And the problem began as soon as he uttered that horrid phrase "compassionate conservative", as if to imply that the word conservative would normally suggest something the opposite.
Just imagine a liberal saying, "Yeah, I'm a liberal, but I'm a compassionate liberal."
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.