Posted on 09/04/2005 8:15:18 PM PDT by SpringheelJack
I rather doubt that. How hard would it be to dictate a few words to a clerk? Or better yet, just have the clerk do it all himself? He apparently has told the court NOT to expect a statement from him.
Maybe he's still writing the dissent.
my money says he is
I suspect maybe Justice Renquist often expressed his disapproval of Souter lying his way on the court. Or maybe Renquist froze Souter out of decisions he wished to write because of his lying his way onto the court.
It might have a bearing on the a disagreement or animosity that might have existed between the two justices.
That disagreement might explain the reason the Souter had nothing good to say about Rehnquist, as he may have felt rejected by Rehnquist. That estrangement might also partially explain why Souter moved to the liberal block of the Court.
It wasn't an attack. It was a request for information that might have a bearing on the news in this thread and also on the liberal alignment of Souter after his appointment to the Court.
this is the kind of talk that only fuels the talks by the democrats....this is also equal to the way they were grave dancing last night...lets not sink that low
we may never understand why liberals think the way they do, but to simply account it to there possible sexuality is low...
He pretty well made mince meat of the 4th amendment, maybe that's what Souter was thinking. When I'm backed up in traffic waiting to be sniffed I know who to thank.
Still, I heard he was very kind to his staff.
What? Upon the death of a fellow collegue? If that is what it is, it's classless.
Souter's strangeness and possible tendencies toward sodomy are definitely relevant, especially if somebody has some dirt on him that would explain his complete betrayal (read: slap in the face) of the President who appointed him and many of the Senators who voted to confirm him.
He's probably looking at foreign etiquite/comments before he makes his statement.
How about getting a longer posting history than a week before you become a moderator.
Bingo.
A question is a personal attack?
Perhaps you're better suited for another forum.
"If you don't have anything nice to say then don't say anything".
Talking to his lawyers about saving his property.
if you guys are sinking that low, maybe this isnt the type of conservatives i want to be around...
There is open discussion of "seats" on the Supreme Court based on the genetics of their birth. I grant it is all rather stupid.
But if it is okay to talk about seats for women, for blacks, maybe for an hispanic, what is the big deal about discussing one's sexual orientation?
I personally don't care if one is male/female, black/Hispanic/white, or gay. I am interested in their judicial philosophy. But genetics and identification with certain groups can mean you are more likely to hold one view than another.
If one's sexual orientation is a no-no, that implies it is something disgraceful, to be hidden. If that is true, we shouldn't allow spouses to accompany Supreme Court nominees to their nomination announcement.
Rehnquist was a normative presence, something totally out of place in the peculiar cosmos of Souter, J.
I heard that the Chief's funeral is being held in St. Matthew's. All the MSM will report is that he's being laid in state at the S.C. If he were up for confirmation now, I guess his religion would be a big issue.
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.