Skip to comments.
WSJ: Bush Nominees Could Tip Court Balances--Democrats See Picks Advancing Conservative Trend
Wall Street Journal ^
| May 23, 2005
| JEANNE CUMMINGS
Posted on 05/23/2005 5:45:44 AM PDT by OESY
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-32 next last
1
posted on
05/23/2005 5:45:45 AM PDT
by
OESY
To: OESY
Democrats say the seven blocked Bush nominees could start a conservative shift in courts that aren't already tilted that way. That was one of the main reasons W was elected and re-elected.
To: OESY
Can you post a little more of the article?
3
posted on
05/23/2005 5:50:25 AM PDT
by
Tennessean4Bush
(An optimist believes we live in the best of all possible worlds, a pessimist fears this is true.)
To: OESY
If all the vacancies were rightly and constitutionally filled, even the 9th circuit would be close!
4
posted on
05/23/2005 5:54:29 AM PDT
by
2banana
(My common ground with terrorists - They want to die for Islam, and we want to kill them.)
To: OESY
Excellent graphic and article! Makes me dream of a day when the 9th Circus returns to reality.
5
posted on
05/23/2005 6:04:18 AM PDT
by
Milhous
To: 2banana
If the 9th circus shifts to the right I will be floored.
6
posted on
05/23/2005 6:05:44 AM PDT
by
TXBSAFH
(Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, who's bringing the chips?)
To: OXENinFLA; ken5050; Howlin
7
posted on
05/23/2005 6:09:28 AM PDT
by
maggief
To: OESY
Why is there only one nominee per district, but multiple vacant seats?
8
posted on
05/23/2005 6:10:03 AM PDT
by
Bostton1
(Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than my guns have!)
To: OESY
"Bush Nominees Could Tip Court Balances" Yes, that's the idea. That's precisely why he was elected and why the voters gave the Senate a majority!
9
posted on
05/23/2005 6:22:13 AM PDT
by
Enterprise
(Coming soon from Newsweek: "Fallujah - we had to destroy it in order to save it.")
To: Enterprise
yes, that is the whole point!
10
posted on
05/23/2005 6:28:57 AM PDT
by
jackv
To: 2banana; Milhous
The 9th Circuit Court should be broken up or disbanded. There are few governmental bodies that act in opposition to the will of the people than the 9th Circuit (MA state courts are bad as well). There have been years where every single case ruled on by the 9th Circus Court has been overturned by the Supreme Court. Consistantly the court has 80% and upwards of its cases oveturned. I remember one year they had 27 of 28 cases overturned.
Can someone tell me how this is serving the people? How is this spending tax payer money wisely?
11
posted on
05/23/2005 6:29:36 AM PDT
by
KC_Conspirator
(This space outsourced to India)
To: Milhous
12
posted on
05/23/2005 6:38:35 AM PDT
by
CGVet58
(God has granted us Liberty, and we owe Him Courage in return)
To: Tennessean4Bush
13
posted on
05/23/2005 6:39:54 AM PDT
by
Mase
To: Tennessean4Bush
I wish I could. Restrictions on posting (i.e., 300-word limits) prevent it.
14
posted on
05/23/2005 6:42:50 AM PDT
by
OESY
To: OESY
Okay, so Democratic Presidents are going to appoint conservative judges?
To: OESY
I'm searching for a word, maybe a phrase that best describes this until-now super secret thesis ...Oh, yeah, DUH.
To: OESY
That graphic makes the RATS' arguments over judicial nominees amazingly transparent.
Look at the Ninth Circuit "balance", Schumer! Kinda telling how this Circuit Court has the MOST BY FAR overturned decisions by the Supreme Court.
17
posted on
05/23/2005 6:50:00 AM PDT
by
Eagle of Liberty
("Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind." —Albert Einstein)
To: Semper Paratus
We (libs and conservatives alike) are all so concerned about how appellate and Supreme Ct. justices will rule concerning legislation--legislation passed by freely elected US and state legislators. Yet, there is NOTHING, I repeat NOTHING in the US constitution giving federal judges the authority to overturn legislation passed by such legislators. The judiciary (under Chief Justice Marshall) essentially seized this power in a constitutional coup in the seminal case Marbury vs. Madison. What we conservatives should be debating is whether the institution of judicial review should even exist in this day and age. Most representative republics don't have it. A law passed by a freely elected parliament is assumed to be constitutional. That is how it is in Britain and most of Europe. American legislators and executives swear an oath to uphold and defend the US constitution. It is thus unthinkable that they would introuduce, let alone pass legislation violating our Constitution. I know this seems quixotic, but if we press our allies in the Federalist society and in Congress, we may, someday, be able to push through a constituional amendment eliminating the odious doctrine of judicial review.
18
posted on
05/23/2005 6:51:14 AM PDT
by
sawdust
("Justice Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it"--Pres. Andrew Jackson)
To: KC_Conspirator; Cboldt
After our Pubbie Senators are done nuking the RATs, they should wipe their noses in it and SPLIT the Ninth Circuit.
The Ninth Circuit has a horrific record and unfortunately makes decisions for over 1/4 of the US population.
Cbolt, what is the process for splitting up or creating a new circuit court?
19
posted on
05/23/2005 6:55:03 AM PDT
by
Eagle of Liberty
("Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind." —Albert Einstein)
To: sawdust
As a check and balance on the Federal Judiciary, the Constitution allows Congress to limit the Court's jurisidiction as it sees fit. High time to excercise this perorgative.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-32 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson