Posted on 08/25/2005 8:56:27 AM PDT by TBP
Senator Diane Feinstein today spoke a little about Supreme Court nominees, and what we can expect from the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings.
She also let us in on what issues Liberals in the U.S. consider when they think of the rulings that affected them, and which they cherish the most.
Feinstein told those gathered to hear her at a meeting of the L.A. County Bar Association that in her opinion the person chosen to replace Sandra Day O'Connor should be "balanced and Fair," and not come from either extreme.
She then proceeded to give a history lesson to those gathered, adding that the U.S. Constitution is "very specific in laying out how a Supreme Court nominee is chosen."
She said, rather forcefully, "Pursuant to the Advice and Consent clause, the president proposes, and the Senate disposes."
Does that mean she is predisposed to dispose of John Roberts?
She also reminded listeners that the Senate has rejected 27 of the 148 proposed judges to the Supreme Court since the founding of our nation - "almost 20 percent!" she gloated.
Feinstein then continued her history lesson, gladdening the hearts of judicial activists everywhere by extolling the virtues of the Supreme Court's rulings that have shaped "the will and the culture of this nation in ways that are everlasting and profound."
Her examples of things that shaped the will of Americans for the good? The court's defense of civil rights and privacy in the 60s and 70s ... and the court's having struck down the 1997 Religious Freedom Restoration Act, passed by Congress and designed to protect religious groups from unduly burdensome government action.
The senator is also proud of the Supreme Court's accomplishments in acting as a check on executive power. Her example? Perhaps undeserved presidential pardons? Underhanded executive orders? Attempted
The Bush administration's jailing of suspected terrorist Yasser Hamdi, and the High Court's subsequent ruling that "even an enemy combatant should be given a meaningful opportunity" to contest his detention.
Feinstein also lauded the Supreme Courts ability to protect the rights of an individual over the wishes of the government.
And what example did she give for this, you ask? Perhaps a case where someone was fighting for his home, his family, or her privacy? No.
She cited the 1990 case of Eisenberg vs. U.S. where, in a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court struck down a congressional statute that prohibited desecration of the flag of the United States as a violation of free speech.
With the criteria she seems to be employing to approve a nominee - if the above examples are her be-all end-all of Supreme Court virtuosity - it would be a wonder if anyone but Karl Marx got Sen. Feinstein's vote for the Supreme Court.
No one gives a **** what Senator Feinstein says. Let her make an a** of herself.
Looks like Feinstein has been persuaded by her liberal compadres to put up a fight.
All I've got to say is "Make my day."
If they filibuster Roberts, and the GOP exercises the nuclear option, then the victims of the McCain insurrection will also finally get their votes.
"in her opinion the person chosen to replace Sandra Day O'Connor should be "balanced and Fair," and not come from either extreme."
She is indeed an idiot. Who ever said that the Pres. has to replace that waffling O'Connor with another waffler? Pres. Bush won; he's the president; he gets to nominate the judges. That's the FACT that they won't accept.
So Feinstein is going to oppose Roberts and make a spectacle of herself at the confirmation hearings. Is this supposed to be some kind of surprise?
We have to votes to get him out of committee to the floor -- and we have the votes on the floor.
They need to shut the hell up, or risk looking like they are 1) smearing a good man, or 2) pandering for votes.
I've never seen that "rule" myself, have you?
We have the stupidest two Senators representing California! I am ashamed to live here. The state is so liberal that the only way to defeat these people is for them to die in office. Boxer is even worse.
I am still not sure on Roberts. I don't want another Souter on the high court.
And if Scalia was the one leaving then a liberal should replace him for balance.
NEAS? NPW THERE IS A KENNEDY KOOK WHO LIVES
AND BREATHES - ONLY TO BASH A REPUBLICAN A DAY..AND WHEN IT
COMES TO JUDGES...HE WILL GO TOW WHALE DUNG TO FIND
A BIT OF VERMIN..HE IS A LYING, NO GOOD...BAS...TIRD.
HE IS IN THE BOOK:
BERNIE GOLDBERG'S ..THE 100 WHO ARE SCREWING UP AMERICA.
Jake
Roberts’s opponents should be stunned, then, to learn that the Court agreed with Roberts’s “extremist” civil rights positions 70 percent of the time.
(link to the full article: http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/kirsanow200508230804.asp)
But we know what they mean by mainstream. They mean "Doesn't agree with the liberal Democrat party platform that has lost countless House and Senate seats and has only won 3 presidential elections in my entire 36 years on this earth."
Massachusetts has you beat.
Oh gee, I'm crushed!
And if by some chance they do muster a filibuster... you only have to look at the RINO's in our ranks to realize that Roberts is no slam-dunk.
He also announced that PFAW has definitive proof that Roberts has shopped at Wal-Mart
I am shocked! Shocked!
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.