Posted on 09/04/2005 5:41:40 PM PDT by doctorhugo
Chief Justice Rehnquist, stalwart defender of a strict interpretation of our Constitution is dead. He served this Nation well and stubbornly fought against the debilitating illness that eventually took him. He deserves our great respect.
However, his passing now opens up the door to what, judging from demonRATS most recent past performances, will be an exercise in assorted acrimonious displays by the professional whiners and their organized legions of left-leaning loonies.
Mr. President, I inplore you to, as soon as possible, hold a press conference so that all the Nation and world may see and hear you to make the following statement:
She's all conservative.
That was BEFORE the Chief Justice passed away. Now we have that idiot Schumer suggesting the President ask O'Connor to remain and APPOINT HER CJ. Won't be long before the rest of the gang joins the chorus demanding that unless and until that is done, Roberts will be put on the back burner.
That never stopped them before. Look at how the treated Colin Powell, Condi, Gonzales, Brown and of course, Thomas before all of them.
As long as the MSM gives them a bye, the Demons get to pat the head of Li'l Black Sambo and croon "stay on da plantation and eveything gonna be juss fahn."
I think I mixed them up.
You're right about the MSM. They cover up every despicable thing the dems do.
Well, the rumor sure would cost moveon.org quite a bit of money in preemtive ads LOL
Rudi who?
Bush has a tough choice here. I think O'Connell is the one with the gravitas to make it through.
You're a one issue SCOTUS nominee man. You just like her paper trail. The senators from my state will not. :) Elevating Scalia to make room for Garza or Jones would perhaps put to much chum in the water all at once. Thus my suggestion for O'Connell. Bush should also wait until Roberts is confirmed to nominate. Keep them guessing. I suspect Rehnquist held on to avoid just this contingency. He held on just long enough, since Bush can wait a month or so without making it seem unseemly.
I think you are right, except for this: What happens if the court has only 8 members for a while? Is there much precedent for that?
Janice Rogers Brown.
Sure. You just carry on. Other justices have died in the saddle. And Nixon had a devil of a time filling that one vacancy, as his first two picks hit the dust, Carswell, and then the dope smoker.
And oh yes, when Justice Douglas went gaga, for over a year, the other justices agreed that Douglas's vote would not be allowed to be the swing vote on any decision, which is the equivalent to a vacancy.
Reason I ask is there are clearly decisions coming up that the 2 new justices will decide: partial birth, campaign finance, and U of Michigan related potentially. If Bush's nominees get confirmed, good chance the conservative position prevails on all 3. If waiting, liberal position prevails or it is 4 to 4 whatever that means... chaos.
4-4 means the lower court decision stands.
... well, that's just stupid!
which is potentially a big problem, since with the new cjs, some would be reversed that would otherwise be upheld. I cannot see that not being a factor in this calculus.
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.