Posted on 09/24/2005 4:31:12 AM PDT by alessandrofiaschi
So it would seem that Ruth-less Ginsberg would rather have a liberal man than a conservative women appointed to the high court?
In other-words she isn't a feminist in its true context of the definition because she only cares for the advancement of women only if they are a liberal it would seem?
When you hear leftest liberals talk about diversity it means only one thing and that is their skin color, gender or sexual preference. Diversity of thought may be talked about in our schools and businesses but "thought" diversity is neither funded nor promoted. Diversity is the new term for racism against all things white, male and Christian. Businesses are now supporting organizations who make no secret of their hate for Christians and white males. Two more things Diversity teaches hate, suspicion and intolerance and there is no Business Case for Diversity all the studies show that diversity does not improve productivity.
Well, given that Republicans recommended her, it is only natural that they went ahead and voted for her. The question is, why did they recommend her in the first place?
No, the question is, now that THEY have the power, why aren't they demanding right-wing radical bombthrowers who would correspond EXACTLY to RBG?
Because she wasn't half as bad as that Attorney General that Clinton wanted. Shes nothing compared to Thurgood Marshall and company. It is my belief that the President generally deserves to get his nominees.
I totally agree with you on this. Brennan and Marshall were repugnant bastards, and compared to THEM, RBG is tolerable.
JRB wouldn't be THE Janice Rogers Brown, would it? I mean, like, has there ever been an article to generate a bigger "Duh"? I am a bit surprised at Bruce Fein, though maybe not surprised at the article...
I know of a "diversity pick" most likely headed to law school in three years. Ready for the Court in about 2029. Stay tuned...
Sure.
A repeal of the 17th would make senators more sensitive to limiting the growth of the federal government at the expense of the States and 10th Amendment rights, and they would ask questions of federal court nominees such as: "Do you believe states have the right to decide whether a person has a right to die?" Better future nominees would say "yes", or at least have a record that says yes, and if not, be more likely to not be confirmed.
A proper Senate (post repeal of the 17th) will protect State legislative authority, keeping it where it belongs. They will block court nominees who would threaten to not rule in the way the majority ruled in Bush v. Gore, which protected (from a rogue liberal state supreme court) the sacred and undisputable right of the Florida legislature to choose electors for president. They might even block nominees who think that affirmative action and radical feminism (inequality for the sake of "justice") is constitutional. Those ideas are often popular, yet unconstitutional. A proper senate won't care as much as the current one does, about popularity. That's the House's job.
Pick a judge that wants to restore and defend the Constitution, not one who adds color or contrast in a group photo.
If that's true, why can liberal white guys get a job there?
Moderation in the defense or pursuit of justice is no virtue.
Nah. All those guys (and things) are too busy having sex with the Senate Democratic "leadership" to fill a SCOTUS seat.
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.