Posted on 07/06/2005 9:42:17 AM PDT by davidosborne
Here is MY short list...
1. John Ashcroft
2. Ann Coulter
3. Roy Moore
Any Comments?
I would like to see these 3 names on the FR Poll question...
Comments?
Thanks for the ping!
Yeah. Are you joking or seriously confused?
Ashcroft isn't such a bad idea, though he's certain to cause a major headache in confirmation hearings. He has no real judicial record to review, though he has been both a state and federal attorney general. He's also 63, and I would like to see a younger person get the job so that they will have more longevity.
Ann Coulter is obviously a joke idea. She's a fun writer to read, but again, no judicial record.
Roy Moore shows you're clearly joking or confused. This arrogant, self-serving blowhard was an embarassment to the state of Alabama, and to religious (and other) conservatives everywhere.
My pick. Roy Moore
BTT!!!!!!!
Agreed. The suggestion of Coulter's obviously there to get a laugh, Moore is a very sad joke of his own, and Ashcroft's too old to have the kind of lasting impact we want.
At first I thought, "You got to be kidding.." Then I let my brain wrap around it for a few minutes and whatta know! Not bad.
She is young. So the longevity issue is taken care of. She is also a constitutionalist, based on her writings, and the idea of her 'reading in' some idea or concept into a decision seems remote. Plus the kicker:
The hue and cry from the Liberals would be simply outstanding! They would have apoplectic fits on film and live on TV. The normally active talk radio's activity would reach epic proportions and the sounds Err America's microphones melting on air might be interesting.
OK, it's just a dream. No way she would be a serious pick. But wouldn't it just be great if on the day of the announcement the President got up and said: "The next SC justice is: Ann Coulter!", then after about 30 seconds simple look into the camera and say: "Just kidding...".
A sound analysis
Bump. Thanks for this post. Nice list.
As a result of the recent Supreme Ct. abomination known as the Kelo vs. New London, CT. case, it is great to see Americans so aware of, & energized in defense of, private property rights by addressing threats, this terrible precedent (Kelo v. New London), and becoming aware of the downside of activist Judges. I have been concerned with both of these related issues for about a decade. I even had brief, separate, conversational encounters with two of the "good" Justices (Scalia & Thomas) in the Kelo case about 6 or 7 years ago re: "The Takings Clause" of the 5th Amendment designed to protect private property from arbitrary seizures, but providing for Eminent Domain for certain "public use" (NOT "public purpose") . It was clear they were anxious to see some good cases walk toward them. I doubt if they would have predicted the bizarre outcome in Kelo, though.
For those of us who are deeply concerned with protection of Private Property from improper application of Eminent Domain in contravention of the Original Intent of the Founders in the 5th Amendment's Takings Clause, I am registering a warning or a concern:
I think AG (& potential USSC Nominee) Alberto Gonzales is very weak on Private Property Rights and lacks an understanding of orignainl intent of the 5th Amendment's Takings Clause (Eminent Domain) based both upon some cases when he ws at the texas Supreme Ct. (e.g., FM Properties Operating Co. v. City of Austin, 22 S.W.3d 868 (Tex. 2000))
and, more recently and significantly, upon his NOT having joined in the Kelo case on the side of property owner. My understanding ws that he had sided with the League of Cities against Kelo while WH Counsel.
As some have frequently observed, he certainly believes in a "Living Constitution" and is NOT a strict constructionist or an Originalist, but rather tends toward the Activist side, per National Review Online and others.
He has been sharply critical of Priscilla Owen in some Texas Supreme Ct. decisions when they were both on that Ct. as Justices, and he has been quoted as being sharply criticial fo Janice Rogers Brown, including being quoted by People for the American Way in their ultra-leftist propaganda.
I'm tired of hearing that ashcroft is too old. He deserves the seat, and it should be offered to him.
Ann would make an OUTSTANDING Supreme Court Justice, if you have ever read a SC opinion you know how boring they can be... wait till you read some of her work.... i can see her writting the majority opinion in MOST cases, for a long time.
Roy Moore is my third choice, because he sticks to his principles, and is not intimited by those who oppose him.
Deserves? This isn't a prize for good behavior, it's the U.S. Supreme Court. Neither Ashcroft nor Coulter have any judicial experience at all. I have nothing against either of them, but I want someone with a demonstrable Constitutionalist track record to fill the spot. This isn't a popularity contest.
Roy Moore is my third choice, because he sticks to his principles, and is not intimited by those who oppose him.
Roy Moore's "principles" are about the self-aggrandizement of Roy Moore. Hardly the trait I want to see in a Supreme Court justice.
Oh, and one more knock on Ashcroft -- one of the same that goes for Gonzales -- is that as a very recent AG, he'd have to recuse himself from a significant number of cases, which gives more power to the court's liberal wing in those cases.
I'd also offer Laura Ingraham. She used to clerk for Clarence Thomas at the SCOTUS.
LOL!
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.