This (the Boogie man) will keep you in check for the remainder of your life and the GOP can always count on your vote.
What a great racket this GOP has going.
Posted on 11/24/2007 6:23:07 AM PST by vietvet67
The other day, at the annual meeting of the Federalist Society in Washington, D.C., Rudy Giuliani observed that there are "200 reasons why the next election is really important." Which 200, you ask? "The 200 federal judges that the next President of the United States will likely appoint over four years in the White House. That's roughly the average that a president gets to appoint." Actually, the average is something under 190. (Ronald Reagan appointed 379 judges in his two terms, and George Bush 192 in his one term. Bill Clinton appointed 372 judges in eight years, and George W. Bush has named 292 in his almost seven years.) But Giuliani is right about the stakes.
If the two parties saw eye-to-eye on what makes a good judge, then judicial selection wouldn't be an issue. But the two parties disagree sharply over how judges should interpret the law, including our supreme law, the Constitution. The Democrats are the party of the "living Constitution," by which is meant a Constitution that judges adapt to meet the needs of a changing society. The Republicans, if we can continue to speak generally here, are the party of the "dead Constitution," as Justice Antonin Scalia once jokingly called it. His witticism indicated the view that judges are obligated to enforce the Constitution as it was understood originally, at the time of its making.
The difference between the two approaches to constitutional adjudication may be usefully demonstrated with reference to Roe v. Wade, the 1973 case in which the Court constitutionalized the right to abortion. The Democrats running for president don't object to the Court's methodology in Roe.
(Excerpt) Read more at weeklystandard.com ...
But everyone here knows that Rooty will only appoint cross dressing transgender judges that Hillary would find too liberal for her taste.
--and it unfortunately is an issue that a majority of voters don't understand or care about---
Given Rudy's history, I congratulate you on the accuracy of your post
Well, since Rooty keeps saying "Look what I did in NYC", I concur - he will.
(not sarcasm)
As with Rudy, to the best of my knowledge Romney ONLY appointed liberal judges in Taxachussetts, knowing that’s the only kind he could appoint. Not sure how many of the judges Dubya appointed were liberal for the same reason. Now if we could find a conservative law school somewhere on the planet, mebbe we could fix that.
Everyone here is delusionsal when it comes to this issue. Rudy will appoint Conservative judges....HILLARY WON’T.
If the Dems control the Senate then you can forget about any conservatives being appointed to key judiciary slots.
I refuse to believe that Rudy will be worse than Hillary. If he wins the primaries and gets the nod then I’ll vote him not because I want to but because of what Hillary and the rest of the dems will do if back in power.
And how liberal did the Clinton agenda get to be with Newt in charge of the House? Bottom line is that your party needs to own Congress to get much of anything done.
Agreed!
"Most of Clinton's policies are very similar to most of mine." - Rudy Giuliani
What a great racket this GOP has going.
Ping
This is so true. Hillary Clinton’s husband appointed over 300 Federal judges. That’s more than enough Clinton judges.
Yea, I admit it, I’m freaking afraid of Hillary Clinton and the posse she brings to town with her. If you’re not, you’re kinda scary yourself.
It’s not the GOP it’s the registered R’s that would bring Rudy to the nomination. I won’t vote for him in the primaries but Hillary has the potential to set this country back in ways that are hard to consider. If Thompson, Hunter, Romney or anyone else out there cannot beat Rudy then that’s their fault for being inferior candidates.
Besides all the feminists that she will appoint to administration positions we get more gay agenda and other “progressive” thinkers in charge of policy. Rudy would have to listen to conservatives, Hillary would simply tell them to stuff it.
This is one area why we must win next year: SCOTUS is on the line but we cannot forget the dozens and dozens and Carter, Reagan, Bush I, and early Clinton judges that we be retiring in the next 4 years. This is one area where I see McCain having an advantage with him having been witness to every SCOTUS confirmation battle since 1987 (including Bork), and hundreds of lesser judges. He’ll know what it takes to get a good judge through the Senate. But if not, anyone is better than Hillary.
Of course.
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.