To: Congressman Billybob
There is no real reason to ask a nominee ANY questions. That is a Rat tactic and valueless if you expect an appointee to rule on questions of law and not have to recuse himself (as you mention). These nominations should be about the record of judicial rulings. If we appoint a judge whose promise is to be conservative but whose record is unclear, we are wasting an appointment. The appointee must be a proven conservative jurist or a verifiable Constitutionalist.
There must be no more Souters.
9 posted on
07/14/2005 5:18:54 PM PDT by
LibertarianInExile
("Property must be secured or liberty cannot exist." -- John Adams. "F that." -- SCOTUS, in Kelo.)
To: LibertarianInExile
There must be no more Souters Or Ginsbergs or Kennedys
54 posted on
07/18/2005 11:10:28 AM PDT by
clamper1797
(Advertisments contain the only truths to be relied on in a newspaper)
To: LibertarianInExile
There is no real reason to ask a nominee ANY questions. That is a Rat tactic and valueless if you expect an appointee to rule on questions of law and not have to recuse himself (as you mention). These nominations should be about the record of judicial rulings. If we appoint a judge whose promise is to be conservative but whose record is unclear, we are wasting an appointment. The appointee must be a proven conservative jurist or a verifiable Constitutionalist. There must be no more Souters.
The no-questions tactic gave us Souter.
59 posted on
07/18/2005 6:59:56 PM PDT by
steveegg
(Now that the FReepathon is over, I'm in search of a tagline)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson