Posted on 09/06/2005 11:08:51 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
....Court watchers have made a science of counting votes on key issues like campaign finance reform, access to abortion, and affirmative action. On these questions, Rehnquist was often a reliable conservative, siding with the minority of the court. O'Connor, on the other hand, was a swing vote who helped write majority decisions, a fact that makes her replacement far more important to the future direction of the Supreme Court. "The Democrats want to look at the two picks together," said Chemerinsky.
President Bush may not give them the chance...."Before the Senate acts on John Roberts' new nomination ... we should know whom the President intends to propose to nominate as a replacement for Sandra Day O'Connor," said Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., in a statement released Monday. "The American people care deeply about the overall balance of their highest court."
..........The Roberts hearings come at a time of some message confusion for Democratic leaders. Though the president has been criticized in the press and in polls for his response to Hurricane Katrina, the ongoing war in Iraq, and growing economic concerns, Democrats as a group have stayed largely silent during the August recess.
In fact, Democrats, with the exception of a single unified stand on Social Security privatization, still appear to be regrouping from last year's presidential election. A few weeks ago, Howard Dean, the leader of the Democratic Party, was asked a simple question on CBS's "Face the Nation": "What is the Democratic Party message?" Dean didn't really have an answer. "You know, we're going to have a -- we're going to work through all this stuff and we're going to have a national message," he told CBS's Bob Schieffer.
(Excerpt) Read more at salon.com ...
I sincerely hope that the president gives them good cause to worry. Say, Janice Rodgers Brown.
"AFTER ROBERTS As liberals continue trying to derail Bush's judicial nominee, they worry: Who's next?"
BORK 'EM!
I don't remember anything in the Constitution about the president having to tell Teddy Kennedy who his next SCOTUS nominee will be.
Come to think of it, I don't remember anything in the Constitution that gives Senator Kennedy the divine right to drown his girlfriends, either.
Music to my ears. They're a cobbled together bunch of extremist groups. Hillary was supposed to lead the way but still they flounder.
The Democrats want to know who Bush is going to nominate for the second spot before they will continue with Roberts.
Join me in laughter.
I'd love to see a quote from the Constitution that says that Bush is suppose to replace a justice with a "like minded" justice.
When did this start?
He he he he he he he....
They're sweating.
This is all rhetoric for public consumption; behind the scenes is quite a different story.
My biggest question of him is how he feels about eminent domain and private property rights.
Does anyone know?
Ann!
When did this start?
January 20, 2001.
LOL.....okay, you got me.
How could I have forgotten that! :-)
"""I wouldn't dare ask Roberts any questions now, because anything he says will be used against him. But his record certainly indicates that he respects the constitution and opposes big government encroachment on it."""
It's too late to know after he is in the supreme court.
If he is for eminent domain as it was just decided then I don't want him to be a supreme court justice.
The snobs in the elite left believe that the constitution has gradually evolved, to adapt itself to modern circumstances and desires--under their personal supervision, of course. So a neanderthal outsider, like that stupid Texas oilman Bush, has no business interfering with their conduct of this delicate matter of constitutional evolution.
Evolution of the constitution should be a matter to be debated at liberal cocktail parties and settled in the back rooms of the DNC and the New York Times, not by some ignorant slob the American people just happened to elect because they momentarily forgot to stay their place and mind their proper business.
"The American people care deeply about the overall balance of their highest court."
Okay, Senator, we'll have five justices who will interpret the Constitution and four justices who will make it up as they go along. What tripe!
I agree. I'll take any strict constructionist. IIRC, Brown has a very high intellect and would make a good justice. Regardless of side facts like gender, race or ethnicity. I just particularly enjoy the fact that liberals take particularly offense at people from "groups" who are supposed to follow them. And I'm so tired of their constant bombardment of the president that I just feel like watching them implode. Sick I know. But I'm so tired of all Katrina bashing that I want to see him outsmart them again. And then gnash their teeth.
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.