Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Why Judicial Appointments Do NOT Matter (Schiavo)
2005-03-26 | UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide

Posted on 03/26/2005 11:56:14 AM PST by UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-102 next last

1 posted on 03/26/2005 11:56:15 AM PST by UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide
I believe Judge Pryor was a George H. W. Bush appointee, either way, fewer activist judges all around would be a good thing.
2 posted on 03/26/2005 12:00:12 PM PST by infidel29 ("It is only the warlike power of a civilized people that can give peace to the world."- T. Roosevelt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide

Maybe the Republican presidents tended to be more ethical. Nice guys finish last.


3 posted on 03/26/2005 12:00:25 PM PST by marsh_of_mists
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide

Excellent piece, thank you. I've been arguing this for a long time. I had no idea Pryor was one of the 11th Jerkoffs who voted against doing anything about the district court openly defying intent of Congress and refusing to have de nove hearing. After Bush went to the trouble to get him a recess appointment. And I believe the lovely Herr Doktor Reichskankler Advokat Greer is also supposed to be a Republican. Once 99.99 percent of them put on that black robe, it's over.


4 posted on 03/26/2005 12:00:48 PM PST by nimbysrule
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nimbysrule

PS: I must give credit to one of the .01 percent - Byron White was A GREAT MAN AND A GREAT JUSTICE. Isn't it interesting that probably the most sensible of 20th C. justices was a football player???


5 posted on 03/26/2005 12:03:56 PM PST by nimbysrule
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide

this is a very reasoned and well-written piece. thanks.


6 posted on 03/26/2005 12:04:12 PM PST by kingattax (If you're cross-eyed and dyslexic, can you read all right ?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide
Pryor was a Dubya appointee. And for clarification, despite the media's gleeful reporting that the rehearing was denied by a 10-2 vote, the 11th Cir. does not release the vote tally. So even though, two judges issued dissents, we do not know what the actual results of the vote, nor how Pryor voted.

You people really need to stop throwing our own overboard and blame the bad guys in this situation; Greer, Felos and Michael Schiavo.

7 posted on 03/26/2005 12:04:19 PM PST by bigeasy_70118
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide
The entire Terri situation has nothing to do with Judicial appointments per se.

One cannot reasonably expect the courts to rememdy defective legislation. THAT is the issue here.

Florida has catered to the death industry by creating enabling legislation to actively kill non terminal patients by means of starvation and dehydration.

We cannot blame judges for this. IF we want this fixed, we must be all over our lawmakers.

We may not like the legal outcome, but it started with our lawmakers.

8 posted on 03/26/2005 12:05:26 PM PST by drc43 (Happily posting red herrings till I know better.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kingattax
this is a very reasoned and well-written piece. thanks.

No it wasn't. His premise was wrong, his facts wrong and the conclusions drawn from the facts were wrong. It was like reading a conservative Paul Krugman.

9 posted on 03/26/2005 12:06:21 PM PST by bigeasy_70118
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: bigeasy_70118

Very well stated and thanks for the information about the Court. I don't want activists judges no matter what -- I want judges who rule on the law period. Even if I don't like what is ruled, I want it based on the law. I thought that is what conservatives always wanted?


10 posted on 03/26/2005 12:07:25 PM PST by PhiKapMom (AOII Mom -- Increase Republicans in Congress in 2006!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

Comment #11 Removed by Moderator

To: UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide
The only serious way to turn back judicial activism is through the executive nullification of the most odious of judicial rulings, such as starving an innocent woman to death on dubious evidence and calling it a Constitutional Right.

Yes. Another odious judicial ruling worth mentioning is the dismemberment of unborn infants inside their mother's wombs and calling that a Constitutional Right. Working "inside the system" is not going to change a thing. The fiasco in Florida proves that Republicans have absolutely no intention of changing the status quo, unless forced to do so by the threat of loss of office. Therefore, no Republican who does not call for impeachment of pro-abortion judges, and executive nullification of their murderous "rulings", will get my vote in the future. None.

12 posted on 03/26/2005 12:10:44 PM PST by VinceJS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide
The congress at one time had the power to dismiss all judges except the Supreme Court. And they do not really have to appoint anyone to those positions. It is my opinion that Congress should withdraw funding for all judges except for the Constitutional requirement of the Supreme Court. We have gotten ourselves into a position where dictator judges have decided that they make the law and run the country. They let sex offenders out of jail so they can kill and rape again. They do not want to sentence murderers to death and they will give any criminal more rights that they give to innocent people who are trying to live their lives.

If the Congress does not take back their power under the Constitution then they should return home so that we do not have to pay then and their staff for doing nothing.
13 posted on 03/26/2005 12:11:32 PM PST by YOUGOTIT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide

Excellent piece, very well written and researched.


14 posted on 03/26/2005 12:11:58 PM PST by MTOrlando
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide

This is an excellent analysis.


15 posted on 03/26/2005 12:13:37 PM PST by tomahawk (If we can't stand for life, what can we stand for?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide

Leftist judges give us sexual predators in working class neighborhoods. And cable TV for jails. Trust me, it matters.


16 posted on 03/26/2005 12:13:54 PM PST by GOPJ (Liberals haven't had a new idea in 40 years.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide
forlorn hope for impeachments

Samuel Chase (April 17, 1741-June 19, 1811), was an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court and a signer of the United States Declaration of Independence as a representative of Maryland. He was well-known as a Federalist-partisan.

Chase was born in Maryland and educated in Baltimore. He studied law and practiced it in Maryland. In 1774 he represented Maryland at the Continental Congress, and was re-elected in 1775, serving until 1778. In 1786, living in Baltimore, he was appointed chief justice of the District Criminal Court, and then became Chief Justice of the Maryland General Court. In 1796 he was appointed a judge of the Supreme Court of the United States, serving there until his death.

Chase was served with 6 articles of impeachment by the House of Representatives in late 1804. Two more articles would later be added. The Jeffersonian Republican-controlled United States Senate began an impeachment trial against Justice Chase in early 1805. He was charged with political bias, but was acquitted by the Senate of all charges on March 1, 1805. To this day, he remains the only Supreme Court justice to be impeached.

He is not to be confused with Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase, the man on the $10,000 bill.

17 posted on 03/26/2005 12:15:22 PM PST by Milhous
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide

But don't forget that the sheer number of appointments a President makes to all levels of the federal court system can have a strong effect.


18 posted on 03/26/2005 12:17:25 PM PST by tomahawk (If we can't stand for life, what can we stand for?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PhiKapMom

I have reason to believe that Pryor did not vote the way the poster suggested and the en banc vote was closer than 10-2. But without any first hand knowledge, I will not print what I was told by someone close to the court.


19 posted on 03/26/2005 12:17:55 PM PST by bigeasy_70118
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: VinceJS

Sure...the Republicans are blocked by the judges and will lose votes in the next election. If they go in to rescue Terri, the press will howl "jack-booted Nazis!" Excellent trap.


20 posted on 03/26/2005 12:21:02 PM PST by bookworm100
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-102 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson