Skip to comments.Supreme Court possibilities if Romney wins election
Posted on 10/01/2012 4:25:30 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Here is an unofficial list of potential nominees for the Supreme Court if Mitt Romney is elected president in November. This list was compiled from a number of sources, including those serving as informal advisers to the Romney campaign. The Republican nominee has not specified publicly on favorites for the court. Many names mentioned are relatively young judges named to the federal bench by President George W. Bush.
Paul Clement, former U.S. Solicitor General
Born 1966. Considered by many as one of the best lawyers of his generation. The Wisconsin native went to Harvard Law School where he was a classmate of President Barack Obama, and later clerked for Justice Antonin Scalia. He served as solicitor general under President George W. Bush and earned raves for his persuasive, conservational style at oral arguments. Now a private attorney, he has become the go-to guy among conservatives to lead appeals on a variety of hot-button issues: health care reform, same-sex marriage, immigration enforcement, and gun rights. He personally argued seven cases in the 2011 term, including the health care petitions. He has been strategically coy about his chances for the high court, saying he would be honored but remains focused on his law practice.
Judge Brett Kavanaugh, U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit
Born 1965. Began his job May 2006 in a court that has seen several of its former members make the jump to the Supreme Court. A former top official in the George W. Bush White House. His nomination to a federal appeals court for the D.C. circuit was held up for three years by Democrats. Senators Patrick Leahy and Richard Durbin later accused Kavanaugh of misleading the Judiciary Committee during his confirmation over whether he helped formulate policy on the detention and questioning of accused terrorists...
(Excerpt) Read more at edition.cnn.com ...
A lot of us were surprised to learn that Laura Bush is pro-abortion, and for homosexual "marriage".
Something is rotten in the gop-e.
When did Jim sell you Free Republic? What’d that run you?
There are certain behaviors that are expected here for no-trolls, one is pinging people that you are attacking, and another is to not cross threads and drag threads from one to another.
They don’t want FR to degenerate into a bunch of never ending personal grudges and old ladies making personal attacks that continue and hijack thread after thread.
Who would want such a thing, and who is so childish, that they would do such behavior? This is a political forum for adults.
He’s basically a jag-off who hates anyone and anything connected in anyway to the Mormon Church. If Tea Party stalwart Mike Lee were the nominee, he’d have nothing good to say about him for the same reason.
Just driving by, this caught my eye.
You actually believe what you write?
I mean, really?
The times that I am reading through a thread, and run across your posts, seems they are nothing but the same old garbage, dragged from thread to thread, like a dead horse, only on a bring out the dead cart, to make transportation a bit easier.
Does nothing but stink up thread after thread, day after day, SOS, same old garbage.
But, you know, I have learned to spot your comments from the other end. It is a good thing.
That is not true at all.
JR has addressed that when another poster tried your tactic.He made it clear that the poster was incorrect.
This is a political forum, of course you see our posts on politics, posting on politics is what this forum is all about.
Even when you have a different view from the facts that are posted.
Bush was also never pro-life, believing in aborting babies if he didn’t like who the father was. In otherwords kill the baby and let the rapist live. He also went against Pope John Paul who was 100% against the boneheaded invasion of Iraq. How many American lives have been lost to that trillion dollar turkey shoot? Afganistan I agreed with, but it could have been turned into a parking lot in less than a month. If he had wanted to really go after the people that caused 9/11, from flying the planes into the buildings to financing the attack, he would have attacked Saudi Arabia, and taken every damn drop of their oil. Think gas would be around $4 a gallon if we controlled Saudi’s oilfields. If I remember right Bush never vetoed a spending bill of any type until his last few months in office. The plan truth of the matter is he gave the country the socialist Obummer. If Bush had governed like a conservative and had also chosen a replacement instead of a mentor in Cheney, Obummer would have never been elected.
Post behind your back? Every other post on this thread is by you, I’m sure you caught mine, seeing how you answered it. And me dragging baggage into this thread? You practically post the same thing everyday to a different person. Talk about baggage!
Why waste time on the obvious?
You know to ping someone when you are attacking them, and you must know that posting political data and information and even political opinions on various threads is totally different from carrying personal attacks from thread to thread.
This thread is about Romney and judge appointments.
Do you live on your computer? Any time of day or night you’re posting your drivel if the name Romney is mentioned. Go take a walk you might not be so angry all the time.
In my opinion, the real reason for the war in Iraq was to protect the reserve currency status of the dollar. Saddam Hussein was threatening to trade for oil in Euros. Reserve currency status is a license to print money with minimal consequence. I believe that the purpose for the creation of the Euro in the first place was to challenge the dollar in that role. Had Saddam succeeded, hundreds of billions of dollars would have come home and perhaps would have caused hyperinflation. In other words, as unethical as it might have been, it that stupid war might well have been worth at least the money to take that creep down. "Nation building" thereafter is another thing entirely.
Do try to concentrate on politics and adult topics, not this endless, girlish, personal stuff.
I was born at night; not last night.
The Supremes are quite obviously owne, operated and controlled by larger, more powerful and better politically connected forces. It isn’t an independent court.
Yes, either would be good. We all know of Judge Napolitano; but, Moore has a very interesting biography, too, had kind of lost track of him in the last year or so, but glad to see he will apparently be back on the AL SC.
Ther does seem to ba an international cartel of leftist powers lurking in the shadows... not that I am paranoid... just saying...
During the next 4 years, there will be at least two Supreme court justices appointed.
Would you rather have Obama or Romney choose them?
That has nothing to do with what I posted in #17.
I don’t want a liberal picking any supreme court justices.
They’re all politicians and politicians are less concerned with ideology than reelection. All I want is for Obama to get the boot. Let’s send the puppet with no past packing to Hawaii where he can enjoy his ill-gotten gains but leave freedom-loving Americans alone.
Like it or not, either Mitt Romney or 0bama will be appointing the next justices.
This is not a trick question, and it is not a situation in which you any other choice, or in which you can say, “it doesn’t matter” or use some other intellectually vapid ploy.
Of those two, which would you rather have choosing the next two USSC justices?