Posted on 08/17/2005 12:56:26 AM PDT by goldstategop
"It makes little difference since Thomas' judicial record is more telling than Roberts' with regard to conservative issues."
BS. OK, you made a mistake, fair enough. But what's the evidence for the above? Are you prepared for an analysis of their appellate decisions? Remember, we're talking judicial record.
Widely regarded??? You mean like O'Connor was?
...with rock-solid Reaganite credentials...
Reagan's choices of O'Connor and Kennedy were Reaganite (notwithstanding Bork, Scalia)?
whose writings show exactly the kind of thought processes we dream about in a Supreme Court nominee, and whose record on the bench demonstrates a strict constructionist philosophy, would that be acceptable?
Petitio Principii. Assumes what has yet to be proved.
No, not BS. Question: Did we have more evidence of Thomas' originalism or not?
Clinton was given a pass on rape because it was "a long time ago", when in fact it was more recent (and he was older) than some of the stuff being dragged out about Roberts.
Can you imagine the scoffing that would be going on if Republicans pulled out a letter written by an eleventh grader as ammo? Their "pettiness" would totally supersede anything in the letter.
"Question: Did we have more evidence of Thomas' originalism or not?"
Based on his judicial record or not?
It has really reached the point where its become impossible to make sense of this subject.
I'm totally confused.
Based on everything.
You: "It makes little difference since Thomas' judicial record is more telling than Roberts' with regard to conservative issues."
Me: BS. OK, you made a mistake, fair enough. But what's the evidence for the above?
You: Question: Did we have more evidence of Thomas' originalism or not?"
Me: Based on his judicial record or not?
You: Based on everything.
Read your first sentence. Notice how you switched from "judicial record" to "based on everything."
I don't know why you just won't admit your first statement was wrong.
Already answered. Now, Yes or no, was there more evidence for Thomas' conservatism than there is for Roberts, or not???
"Already answered."
I disagree. If you have done so, there would be no harm in simply repeating it. If you won't take this very simple step, there really is nothing further for us to talk about.
would you believe that sasafras still feels the need to come to just about every thread and say stupid things still?
yes... and he's willing to say Reagan was "bamboozled" into nominating Sandra Day O'Connor (don't get me wrong, i love the late Ronald Reagan), but blames Bush for Roberts... and Roberts has yet to do anything anti-conservative on the SC, has he?
really? i thought that if you DID support Bush 110% that you were a terrorist, or at least a flaming liberal... which is it? i see both sides on FR...
Joe Farah had best cut back on his use of enemas.
Didn't he state on this thread that he was going to let it drop after the Admin Mod told him to drop it?
Maybe I can't read English correctly.
don't worry....he can't either :)
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.