Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


1 posted on 09/29/2010 1:51:59 PM PDT by paltz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-65 next last
To: paltz

NFW!


2 posted on 09/29/2010 1:53:17 PM PDT by WellyP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: paltz

They just keep trying to tear down the very system that protects America from corrupt, oppressive government.....


3 posted on 09/29/2010 1:53:52 PM PDT by EagleUSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: paltz

Excellent. What a great idea to fix our broken economy!


4 posted on 09/29/2010 1:54:25 PM PDT by Drill Thrawl (Palin Haley O'Donnell - mmm mmmm mmmmmmmmm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: paltz

Uh, what about a little document called THE CONSTITUTION? Always a bad idea when a cheesy politician thinks he’s smarter than the Founding Fathers.


5 posted on 09/29/2010 1:54:40 PM PDT by La Lydia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: paltz
Sure thing. Shouldn't take much more than an amendment to the Constitution.
6 posted on 09/29/2010 1:54:42 PM PDT by Glenn (iamtheresistance.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: paltz

It’s bad enough that we allow corpses like Leahy to sit in the Senate and don’t even bother to actually run a race against the old fart.


7 posted on 09/29/2010 1:54:44 PM PDT by perfect_rovian_storm (Chuck Norris wears Carl Paladino pajamas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: paltz

NO PROXIES!!!


8 posted on 09/29/2010 1:54:47 PM PDT by NonValueAdded ("It's amazing, A man who has such large ears could be so tone deaf" Rush Limbaugh 9/8/10)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: paltz

In other words, “Let us choose judges favorable to our outcomes”.


9 posted on 09/29/2010 1:54:47 PM PDT by cripplecreek (Remember the River Raisin! (look it up))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: paltz
Let's see if he proposes this in October 2011.

Situational court-packing. What a creep.

10 posted on 09/29/2010 1:55:29 PM PDT by Carry_Okie (Managing "The Environment" is the power to control the entire economy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: paltz

Nope. It’s bad enough they stay there for decades in the first place. The only justice I’d have any hope for is Rehnquist and he’s in heaven.


11 posted on 09/29/2010 1:55:29 PM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and proud of it. Those who truly support our troops pray for their victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: paltz

Uhhhhhhhhhh... hell no.

LLS


12 posted on 09/29/2010 1:55:51 PM PDT by LibLieSlayer (WOLVERINES!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: paltz

How instead about a Constitutional Amendment for mandatory retirement at a reasonable age?


13 posted on 09/29/2010 1:56:12 PM PDT by A_Former_Democrat (NO MOS-que AP: It's the "GROUND ZERO MOSQUE")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: paltz

Somehow this reminds me of Roosevelt’s try to pack the Court.

Things just get curiouser and curiouser.

Maybe the Prez should have thougnt of the recusal problem before he nominated his Solicitor General.


14 posted on 09/29/2010 1:56:35 PM PDT by fightinJAG (Step away from the toilet. Let the housing market flush.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: paltz

Once again the Left is trying to find or create a loop hole in the Constitution.


15 posted on 09/29/2010 1:56:35 PM PDT by txroadkill (Is it November yet?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: paltz

I’m not positive, but I don’t recall that the US Senate was tasked with the responsibility of determining what procedures the Supreme Court will follow.

If memory serves, that responsibility is reserved for the Chief Justice, and Leahy ain’t him...


18 posted on 09/29/2010 1:57:36 PM PDT by Bean Counter (Now what kind of a geroo are you anyway?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: paltz

Not just no, HELL NO!!


22 posted on 09/29/2010 2:02:22 PM PDT by Constitution Day
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: paltz
Um, let's see. How can I delicately put this? DROP DEAD LEAHY - LEAVE OUR CONSTITUTION ALONE!!!

Is that subtle enough?

24 posted on 09/29/2010 2:03:42 PM PDT by SoldierDad (Proud Papa of two new Army Brats! Congrats to my Soldier son and his wife.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: paltz
allow for retired Supreme Court Justices to sit on the court by designation in cases where the active justice has recused.

uhhhhh...NO!

25 posted on 09/29/2010 2:03:58 PM PDT by 6ppc (It's torch and pitchfork time)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: paltz

NOPE.


26 posted on 09/29/2010 2:04:27 PM PDT by paul51 (11 September 2001 - Never forget)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: paltz

I’m another vote for NFW!

By the time most of the Justices retire, they are dried husks of human form with other concerns for the time they have remaining. I would not care to impose on that time.


27 posted on 09/29/2010 2:05:03 PM PDT by T-Bird45 (It feels like the seventies, and it shouldn't.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-65 next last

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


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