Posted on 09/30/2005 11:57:49 AM PDT by NormsRevenge
That sure is a target-rich environment!
"It would tear even more of the minority and women voters away from the Democratic party."
I agree.
It would also give the Republicans a good excuse to use the so called "nuclear option". If democrats are bent on holding back a well-qualified minority Judge from a high level position in our Judicial system, then it is up to the Republicans to take a stand on the side of equality. The Republicans could have a field day spinning this one to make the democrats look like the racists. : )
Sounds good to me.
How dare you insult Sgt. Pepper's like that? LOL!
It's Sam "Scalito" Alito.
Perhaps we simply define "judicial philosophy" differently.
I believe Mr. Roberts will be fine judge, but his "judicial philosophy" is flexible.
"I do not have an all-encompassing approach to constitutional interpretation.... I would not hew to a particular school of interpretation, but would rather follow the approach or approaches that seem most suited in the particular case to correctly discerning the meaning of the provision at issue."
Flexible, pragmatic.
Ann Williams - Appointed by Ronald Reagan
Sonia Sotomayor - Appointed by Bill Clinton
Jose Cabranes - Appointed by Bill Clinton
Edward Prado - Appointed by george W Bush
Ditto.
Further, when she or anyone lashes out they are calling into question MY assessments of Roberts, and everyone supportive of him. It is not only the President under attack, but it is personal to millions of Americans.
I didn't support Roberts on blind faith. I didn't support him based on the number of profiled Americans supporting him that in addition to the President included someone, for example, as instrumental in the battle for the Judiciary for decades- Ed Meese.
I would not have so strongly supported Clements and my initial reaction to each in the Live post that day proved it. I resent anyone implying only dissenters have looked at this rationally. That only dissenters have any basis to form a learned judgement about his approach to the Constitution.
Judge Mills Lane
kptv.home.comcast.net/Shows/Photos/Mills.gif
Here are some other considerations regarding the fallout from the selection of Janice Rogers Brown which I posted earlier:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1493548/posts?page=85#85
To: LucyJo
you and me, too, ma'am.
It'd be good poker of the highest order as
1) It'd force the Dems to attack a black female
2) Who was re-elected by large margins in the well-known bastion of right-wing extremism known as Kah-lee-four-nyah.
3) Who they have voted for mere months ago to confirm to a seat on the D.C. Circuit Court.
1 and 2 just make them look bad when they attack.
3 makes them look either stupid or hypocritical; they'll make verbal pretzels in the air explaining why she suddenly became a maybe from a yes.
Won't have to First will Wimp.
A little redundent are we?
What makes you think I'm redundant?
What makes you think I'm redundant?
What makes you think I'm redundant?
What makes you think I'm redundant?
"I do not have an all-encompassing approach to constitutional interpretation.... I would not hew to a particular school of interpretation, but would rather follow the approach or approaches that seem most suited in the particular case to correctly discerning the meaning of the provision at issue."
That's what he said in the dog-and-pony show of the confirmation hearings. His real judicial philosophy is available for analysis in his judicial opinions.
If you're interested.
I have read his opinions. He has a pretty dull career. I can't see much philosophy there.
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.