Posted on 02/03/2006 1:05:52 PM PST by FerdieMurphy
No, I am saying that the President will himself initiate a Souter II appointment, particularly, if in 2007 (assuming a vacancy, perhaps Stevens) he thinks he is so weak that he has no choice but to compromise from the start. I hope that I am wrong.
I'm just curious. Did you get your screen name from, "Prince of Space?"
GWB will NEVER nominate a Souter-type. He's the last man who will ever make his father's mistake.
There was complacency among some about Miers, and there is complacency now about the Alito confirmation. The kind of people who complained about that first, horrible appointment are the kind of people who get told to "breathe." Good thing they weren't discouraged by this cheap name-calling.
Alito is only a down payment on a conservative court -- he's a fourth vote, not a fifth. And I think even in Alito's case, there is cause for concern, however modest.
We need one more opening, and it needs to be filled with someone at least as good. In addition, Scalia is old and fat. Sorry, but he is. I doubt that he has another 10 years. He needs to decide whether he wants to risk being replaced by the Witch, or any other Rat. If he makes the wise decision and retires in 2007, will he be replaced by someone equally strong? I'm not prepared to assume that, especially given the Prez's notorious political correctness, and the Miers disaster.
Yes, we made some progress with Alito. But we still have a long way to go.
Go to my profile and click on my pic.
ROTFLMAO!! I knew you were one and the same.HAAA............HAA......HAA............HAAAAA.....HAAA!
(and your weapons have no effect on me)
First of all, it is a correct observation, and second of all, I'm not sure someone who hasn't even been here a year should be lecturing people on FR etiquette.
You are making yourself look really silly. Even after all of this, you still don't know what happened here, and yet you continue to comment. That's not very smart.
You are so smart, however, that I will be careful not to respond to your comments so that you may continue believing you're the smartest Wildcat in the world. And as far as the one you posted just before this one is concerned your observation is not correct and is unkind to the extreme.
I agree completely with your analysis, even though you are from CA (Ha).
I told ya you shoulda picked Miers.
You are dead wrong.
U.S. Constitution Article 6 -- This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
U.S. Constitution Amendment VIII - Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
U.S. Constitution Article 3, Section 2 - The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution.
This case was brought to the Federal Court, by a citizen of the United States claiming that the manner of death proscribed by the State constitutes cruel and unusual punishment, and thus prohibited to any State by the U.S. Constitution...the Supreme Law of the Land.
The Supreme Court has Constitutional jurisdiction over this case.
Your argument would in fact set up a situation where a State could freely violate a citizen's Constitutional rights under the guise of State's Rights...no State has the right to violate the Constitutional rights of its citizens.
I'm sorry, where is the "judicial courtesy" law written? Where will his "judicial courtesy" take him on other important issues, pick one, any one?
IOW, he showed his hand in the hearings, the lawyers called, they win, we lose.
Post 1925 perhaps I am. However under the intent of the Constitution and the Framers, the Amendments applied only to the citizens of the respective states in accordance to their relationship with the national government.
Even under the Fourteenth Amendment the 8th Amendment to the Constitution was not 'incorporated' until 1925
Your argument would in fact set up a situation where a State could freely violate a citizen's Constitutional rights under the guise of State's Rights...no State has the right to violate the Constitutional rights of its citizens.
Hmmm, what did SCOTUS say in Pervear (1866)? Let me quote it for you shall I?
"Of this proposition it is enough to say that the article of the Constitution relied upon in support of it does not apply to State but to National legislation."
Only after 1925, after an activist Court 'found' this limitation on the states did the 8th Amendment apply at the state level.
But I do realize 'conservatives' support activist courts when it suits their needs, eh?
He gets trashed endlessly during the questioning period. Then, when his first decision, after a mere hours on the bench, appears at odds with Conservatives but is exactly what he said he would do if it came up, the media can't wait to trash him for that as well.
Looks to me that we just might have gotten a man of integrity on the bench, finally.
But, he did not get a commutation. A stay is only a postponement until legal issues brought up may be decided upon.
Once decided upon, it will do the anti-death penalty wackos no good to file the same charges again, as they do with nearly every death penalty case.
This slime ball may live a little longer (yes, longer than he deserves), but in the end, it just may result in other death penalty cases not being drug out as long over the same claims.
Comments should be based on facts for the discourse to be intelligent. Yours are clearly not fact-based.
Moreover, the stay was not issued by the Supreme Court, but by the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals - but the poster keeps insisting it was the SCOTUS and Alito that issued the stay.
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.