Posted on 09/04/2005 5:41:40 PM PDT by doctorhugo
The deadlock does not create a precedent. SCOTUS can come back to the issue in another case. It does not worry me at all. Don't worry, be happy. Well, I am not happy with Bush right now, over Katrina, but that is another matter. 22% of Pubbies agree with me per the poll put up on this site.
I nominate Sandra Froman. She's a lawyer, she's Jewish, she's President of the National Rifle Association, and Chuck Schumer would have to check into a hospital.
I have followed your comments on Katrina. You certainly won't find me disagreeing with you.
I'm with you.... Plus, it adds some extra scrutiny of the untruths dems keep trying to sell about W's so-called racism! I love getting to smell dems eating their own b.s. in the morning.
Justice Janice Rogers Brown to stick it to the NAACLP!!Pray for W and Our Freedom Fighters
W ought to bump Scalia to top spot. Roberts will pass muster leaving an empty seat.
Two in mind are Janis Rogers Brown and Ted Olsen.
Argue.
Rudi Giuliani, former mayor of New York
The whole ideal is to get the liberals out of Control of the Supreme Court. Why would the President put that liberal on the court?
This one is written in stone, it will be a hispanic or a woman.
Since when is a post done with sarcastic humor based in realities considered a "vanity" post?
It appears that you are one who wishes to discredit that with which you might disagree.
Refer to my response post #47. As is Ms. Brown, so is Ms. Jones AND others who have been mentioned. In this instance though, Judge Pickering is eminently qualified and, for the reasons noted in that post I referenced, could well prove strategically embarassing to the obstructionist demonRATS.
While I'm posting I'd like to acknowledge my agreement with the President's elevation of John Roberts to be Chief of the court. He caught us all napping on that one. We were playing checkers, whilst he was playing chess.
Touche W!
You have fallen into the demonRAT trap and are making judgements based upon what group you classify an individual as being a part of AND NOT WHO THEY ARE AND WHAT THEY STAND FOR.
You may wish to reconsider that position.
Any post which does not have a "source" that can be linked is vanity. If a Freeper writes it himself, and it's not published elsewhere, it's a vanity.
And you don't know what you're talking about. You mistake political prognostication for ideology. Not my problem.
You may wish to reconsider that position
I'm not reconsidering anything. I think the likelihood of one of the four I mentioned being chosen is very high and all are well qualified, tend toward originalism and are conservative jurists.
Guess what? You are correct.
"You mistake political prognostication for ideology. Not my problem."
You framed another subsequent post similarly. I jumped on the former, because I try NEVER to come at it from that perspective. The reason being that what I attributed to you is the frame of reference the RATS use for EVERYTHING and it's hypocritical and disengenuous, but their modus operandi. So, when I see it so used I'm guilty of making an assumption. Wrong on my part. I should have queried you first and not fell prey to a ROSTTB! For that error in judgement, I apologize.
No sweat.
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.