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


1 posted on 05/23/2005 5:45:45 AM PDT by OESY
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


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.

2 posted on 05/23/2005 5:47:44 AM PDT by Semper Paratus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

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.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

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.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

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
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: OXENinFLA; ken5050; Howlin

Ping.


7 posted on 05/23/2005 6:09:28 AM PDT by maggief
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

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!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

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.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: OESY

Okay, so Democratic Presidents are going to appoint conservative judges?


15 posted on 05/23/2005 6:43:38 AM PDT by ArmedNReady
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: OESY
I'm searching for a word, maybe a phrase that best describes this until-now super secret thesis ...Oh, yeah, DUH.
16 posted on 05/23/2005 6:48:43 AM PDT by small voice in the wilderness (Quick, act casual. If they sense scorn and ridicule, they'll flee..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

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)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: OESY
WSJ: Bush Nominees Could Tip Court Balances--Democrats See Picks Advancing Conservative Trend

WSJ: Sun rises in east -- Democrats see picks impacting women, children.

22 posted on 05/23/2005 7:04:21 AM PDT by metesky ("Brethren, leave us go amongst them." Rev. Capt. Samuel Johnston Clayton - Ward Bond- The Searchers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: OESY

Basically we've had almost entirely liberal judges appointed to the courts for the past 60 years. Even when Republican presidents were in office they usually had to deal with Democrat-dominated senates. So Republican presidents compromised--meaning they appointed half RINOs and half Democrats--while Democrat presidents appointed more and more machine politicians and leftist activists to the bench.

Not even Ronald Reagan succeeded in reversing this unhappy trend, in which our courts have gotten more and more radical, unaccountable to the voters or the Constitution, and out of control.

Bush is the first Republican president to actually hold out for decent appointments. Rather than compromise in his first term, as Eisenhower, Nixon, and Reagan finally did, he has stuck with his nominees. As a result there has been deadlock for four and a half years. That's better than giving in and appointing an Earl Warren or a David Souter to the Supreme Court. Hopefully we are reaching the breaking point, and hopefully it will break our way.

This reminds me of the fight over reapportionment in Texas. It's OK when the Democrats stack the deck and gerrymander, but when the voters endorse a change of parties, the Democrats have to be dragged along kicking and screaming about how unfair their opponents are.


24 posted on 05/23/2005 7:27:59 AM PDT by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: OESY

This is precisely why courts shouldn't be legislating. If they did their jobs according to original intent, then we wouldn't be having this fight. These days the only reason who you vote for matters is that they have influence over the make up of the courts. The more courts legislate, the more intense the fight over nominations becomes. It's inevitable. Judges are our new elite rulers, so what little say we have on just WHO rules is of paramount importance.


26 posted on 05/23/2005 7:39:59 AM PDT by The Ghost of FReepers Past (Legislatures are so outdated. If you want real political victory, take your issue to court.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

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