Posted on 09/17/2005 8:40:29 AM PDT by Unam Sanctam
Did you see O'Reilly and Schumer?....Big "O" tried
to nail him down for a Roberts vote...he didn't say
no...I think there new strategy is to have a few
of the firebreathers go with Roberts...and a few
not...presenting a fair image of their dastardly
motives....watch 'em..they are sneaky as hell and
want to keep Bush from any successes... Jake
Kennedy and O'Connor are not liberal. They are mushy moderate conservatives. Liberals were foaming at the mouth to attack them as "partisan Republicans" when they voted to stop Gore from having infinite recounts in Florida. O'Connor is the 4th most conservative member of the court and has voted the "right way" on the majority of the issues (property rights, Christian heritage, school vouchers, gun rights, etc.) She's wrong on abortion and a couple of others.
And the only reason we have wussy moderate Kennedy on the court is that the Senate Dems lynched the previous two conservative nominees Reagan put up.
The only real screw ups where Republican Presidents tossed wacko liberals on the court was Ford appointing Stevens and Bush I appointing Souter.
I agree. And it is the Dimms who accuse us of using code words?
IMHO, I believe the main reason socialist liberals believe WE use code words, is because THEY do...and it is entirely impossible for them to not believe the other side does the same.
This, I believe, goes for anyone they are opposing.
The Clintons were and are political junkies of the highest order...motivated by their particular version pure political ideology, hence they also believe we, as libertarian conservatives (and everyone else), are as well.
Our freedom is bequeathed by our Creator, and our liberty unalienable.
Durbin is really asking the judge what licentious behaviors he will be allowing his subjects to engage in, should Durbin be so kind as to confirm Mr. Roberts to the court.
Anyone know when the full senate will vote on Judge Roberts?
"That would have been the farthest thing from their mind."As would, we can imagine, many negative things that have become common place in our present society.
One senses that Judge Roberts is an awesome intellect and will be an excellent Chief Justice.
The President is to be commended for this nomination.
Do not be so quick to underestimate his powers of persuasion. He puts a high value on consensus among the Justices so he may win over the more wobbly members.
I refuse to call him Durbin.
"Dirtbag" is more fitting
As evidenced by his injudicious outburst regarding Gitmo, Dirtbag fanices himself some sort of liberal intellect
Keep talking, Dick
To be fair, Kennedy counts as half a justice. So its really 4.5, and we hold the Chief position.
Despite repeated Republican failures (Souter, Oconner, Kennedy), the courts have gradually shifed right from the '60s and the Earl Warren/Thurgood Marshall days.
"Do not be so quick to underestimate his powers of persuasion. He puts a high value on consensus among the Justices so he may win over the more wobbly members."
Namely, Anthony Kennedy. By far the most wobbly member on the court.
One question to ask John Roberts: When can you start?
Anyone know when the full senate will vote on Judge Roberts?
__________________________________________
The last week of this month. Not sure the exact day.
Is that kind of like the Denver Broncos with San Diego this weekend?
They turned the ball over inside the Chargers territory, had two touchdowns called back, and still managed to pull out a win?
It is called, the court has tended to the right despite our fumbled and intercepted efforts. That says a lot...about where we could have been.
Bingo! With 7 Republican nominees, and 5 by Reagan and Bush I, the court could be a great place.
US Code Sec. 453. Oaths of justices and judges
Each justice or judge of the United States shall take the following oath or affirmation before performing the duties of his office: "I, ___ XXX, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as ___ under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God."
Not clear to me that under and uphold have the same crisp meaning...apparently its not clear to a number of the justices as well.
Probably depends on whether they are up for relection in '06 and the "poles" of their electorate on this subject. Reid and Leahy have given both Demo Camps cover which ever way they need to vote to stay alive..I think the Dem leadership understands they are in really deep dodo in some places (Fla for example) out there in "fly-over land"...then again..maybe they just aren't that smart. I always tend to overestimate them...
They are easy to over-estimate. Pomposity and a
devious approach has been their downfall....they still
think they are running against Bush..sometimes, he is
embarrasing the way they make asses of themselves,
especially the Black caucus crowd...Bernie Goldberg
book...100 people screwing up America..has some good
jabs at a few, also some of us guys (Savage)..but there is
this thing out there of a superior mode that is funny as
hell..when comparead to realism...Jake
PS: Before, I am branded a racist..I worked with and
for black people, for over 35 years..in the pseudop-ghetto.
I never ran into the Jesse and Al types..some close.
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.