Posted on 09/22/2005 11:04:08 PM PDT by FarRockaway
Thankfully, President Bush will ignore disrespectful twits who frequent internet sites just to call him names, as if they were big somebodies when they're not, and make his decisions on criteria that have long been established.
There were times, however, during her tenure on the California Supreme Court that Brown demonstrated purportedly liberal positions on criminal sentencing, freedom of speech and gun control.
The great thing about Thomas or Scalia is the paucity of liberal positions.
You are correct. Bush/Rove got lucky in 2000. And a real conservative would've stomped the guts out of a left-winger like Kerry. "Compassionate" conservatives on the other hand will always win in a squeaker if at all.
Not Roberts nor any serious candidate for the SCOTUS should EVER tip his hand on subject matter likely to come before the court. To do so might well put him or her in the position of having to recuse himself or herself from the actual case(s) that would be heard to decide such issues. It is not by accident that the Democrats are trying to get Roberts to go on record on these matters because they hope to have him remove himself from the cases.
This is a high-stakes poker game and the Dems just folded. Another hand is being dealt and the likelihood of success is not helped by the carping of amateurs who don't know the rules but like to hear themselves braying.
OK where is the MSM charging that there is anti-hispanic sentiment behind the opposition ot Gonzales and question whether the lib author is biased against hispanics. Waiting--Waiting--
No, he's not a betrayal. What he is is an unknown quantity, at least to me. Certainly, Bush thinks Roberts is a conservative, but if he's a sleeper liberal, like Souter, then we've made (another) monumental mistake. That's why I would have preferred Scalia-he's a know quantity who can be counted on to get it right. But regardless of Roberts, I hope Bush doesn't go soft with the next nominee.
Bushie? You sound like a DU'er.
I wonder exactly how one would go about doing that.
Exactly! You nailed it.
The guy who wrote this opinion piece does not know what he is talking about. First off if the experts can not seem to determine how Roberts will vote on issues I can not understand how this guy could. Roberts views on so many subjects are a mystery to me and I watched or listened to most of those hearings.
Next my own opinion is that Roberts was totally vetted before he was chosen. In my own opinion the religious right want the same kind of judicial activism from the right that the leftists want from the other side. So if they are angry, just like we know the liberals are also angry-its a good thing. An originalist showers disdain over "movements" in general, because movements on the left and right of the political spectrum come and go over the long years, but the consititution stays whole.
This is not coming from "the religious right." It's coming from the fringe of the religious right.
Mine too
Christians have to remember, and I hope W does, RvW represents the epitome of liberal judicial thinking, and total scorn for our Constitution. RvW is a blot on our country in so many profound ways.
I do not have the faith in Roberts other conservatives have. For one thing, look at how W refused to fight for his outstanding judicial nominees. No one ever comments on the disgraceful silence of W during the years they were being trashed, and it has all the looks of W throwing a sop to conservatives, with no intention of honorably fighting for them, and every intention of getting political credit for an empty gesture.
Whatever W is, and I really don't know, he is not a conservative. Least of all in his conduct toward the judiciary. Once more, I dread, we will have another Republican squash the hopes of those who want to see an honest, American judiciary.
First of all, the "snakehandlers" are not everyone who professes to be religious, Christian or anti-abortion, they are extreme one issue voters who would rather see the country saddled with a Democrat President and Congress rather than support those who share the same goals, but without the "my way or the highway", no loaf is better than half a loaf mentality. And you folks are considerably less than 47% of the electorate.
I despise Gonzo, he recently "reinterpreted" existing statutes to prevent all future imports of firearm's parts sets for "non-sporting" arms unless the barrel is removed or destroyed in addition to the receiver!
Since he is no friend of the Second Amendment, he is no friend of the U.S. Constitution, thus clearly unfit to hold office.
Elevating him to SCOTUS would be an unforgivable betrayal to American conservatives.
Me too! Too often I do not even think people understand what an originalist means. Personally I wish the whole court was filled with them.
Its too bad the phrase "states rights" took on all sorts of negative undertones over the years. Its not a code-word to do bad things to people, its just the way our country was founded and whats good for NY may not be good for Kansas. I wish people would just realize this.
Hear, Hear
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.