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

Skip to comments.

Fox News reporting that Sandra Day O'Connor retiring!
Fox News | 7/1/05 | SueRae

Posted on 07/01/2005 7:14:03 AM PDT by SueRae

Hearing on Fox News


TOPICS: Breaking News; Constitution/Conservatism
KEYWORDS: 1down6togo; filibustertime; herewego; oconnor; retirement; sandradayoconnor; scotus; supremecourt
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 221-240241-260261-280 ... 1,281-1,297 next last
To: redgolum; Reagan79
FYI..there's a piece in today's Washington Times..the authors has a great line...."Barack Obama will soon be competing with Harold Ford Jr for the Carol Mosely-Braun-lite contest.."
241 posted on 07/01/2005 7:43:53 AM PDT by ken5050
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 204 | View Replies]

To: SueRae

Why hasn't anyone suggested Karl Rove?


242 posted on 07/01/2005 7:43:55 AM PDT by mike182d ("Let fly the white flag of war." - Zapp Brannigan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SueRae

This has got to be a strict conservative, constitution backing appointment. I have worked for the president tirelessly here in Florida but where the Supreme Court is concerned the spine has to be firm and strong. Start the phone call to the White House and the Senate. THEY MUST HEAR FROM US.


243 posted on 07/01/2005 7:43:57 AM PDT by rep-always
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hacksaw

I fear we're gonna get screwed on this one. O'Connor now...and then Rhenquist or Stevens will undoubtedly be next. Actually, I think what we'll get is what his father gave us-one damn good justice like Thomas, and one linguini spined liberal. Since O'Connor isn't always on our side, it may give us at least a small advantage over the current court.


244 posted on 07/01/2005 7:44:01 AM PDT by RockinRight (Conservatism is common sense, liberalism is just senseless.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: kingattax

Reid can't be far behind...LOL


245 posted on 07/01/2005 7:44:11 AM PDT by mystery-ak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 234 | View Replies]

To: MomwithHope

They go after the troops, so they would go after Ted as well.


246 posted on 07/01/2005 7:44:20 AM PDT by Reagan79 (Ralph Stanley Rocks!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: Soul Seeker
And Reagan had a 2-1 recod not in our favor. You again leave that historical note off in your bash.

My "bash" was never directed at Reagan, but at Bush 1. Reagan never gave us a Souter or lied about taxes or propped the Clintons up right before a Hillary prez run. Remember this thread instead of shooting the messenger - Bush and the GOP will cave - we will get at best a moderate. Have you not been watching the Senate lately???
247 posted on 07/01/2005 7:44:21 AM PDT by over3Owithabrain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 216 | View Replies]

To: since1868

That would be an excellent choice.


248 posted on 07/01/2005 7:44:22 AM PDT by Dog Gone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 198 | View Replies]

To: YaYa123

I have to believe GWB and those around him have known for a LONG time who his first appointment would be, when the time came.


249 posted on 07/01/2005 7:44:23 AM PDT by daler (q)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: Peach

Yee hawww!!! Let the games begin!


250 posted on 07/01/2005 7:44:35 AM PDT by marway (Say NO to judicial activism!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: eyespysomething
Clone Thomas.

The Democrat majority in the Senate will never allow Bush to appoint an originalist to the court, particularly to fill one of the "swing" votes occupied by someone whose rulings suggest at least a mild case of schizophrenia.

251 posted on 07/01/2005 7:44:50 AM PDT by SittinYonder (America is the Last Beach)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: theDentist
consiliatory to the Minority Party", "in the name of bi-partisanship", and "meeting them half-way in the name of justice".

new tone.

252 posted on 07/01/2005 7:44:50 AM PDT by johnb838 (Adios, liberal mofos!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: cajungirl

social conservative want a constructionist judge. A constitutionalist. That is the same thing, I believe ALL conservatives wish. If such a judge isn't put on the court, how is the country turned in the right direction?

I don't understand your critisism.


253 posted on 07/01/2005 7:44:57 AM PDT by Soul Seeker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 235 | View Replies]

To: bitt

You love that guy and I like your suggestion! Ted Olsen first.


254 posted on 07/01/2005 7:45:19 AM PDT by 68 grunt (3/1 India, 3rd, 68-69, 0311)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: YaYa123

Many people besides Billy Boy had a clue since she did not rehire her staff.


255 posted on 07/01/2005 7:45:21 AM PDT by samantha
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: RoseofTexas
O'Connor has been the swing vote IN THE LIBERAL'S FAVOR, on many important cases.........for instance, she was the fifth vote to protect partial birth abortion. Good riddance, Sandra.
256 posted on 07/01/2005 7:45:22 AM PDT by MamaLucci (Mutually assured destruction STILL keeps the Clinton administration criminals out of jail.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 164 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

I'll third, fourth and fifth that nomination.


257 posted on 07/01/2005 7:45:30 AM PDT by marine86297 (I'll never forgive Clinton for Somalia, my blood is on his hands)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 189 | View Replies]

To: CitizenM
I have a strange proposal: Appoint Hillary.

Citizen, my friend with all due respect I think something you ate has affected you. Appointing Hitlery to SCOTUS is akin to having Bill run a cathouse. She'd have a lifetime of fun at our expense.

258 posted on 07/01/2005 7:45:37 AM PDT by FROGTOWN CONSERVATIVE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 217 | View Replies]

To: Dansong

Then you obviously haven't listened to what he has had to say since he first started running or paid attention to his list of judicial nominations. He is about strict Constitutionalist not wishy washy SCOTUS -- why do you think the RATs have filibustered so much. Obviously, you just wanted to attack the President once again when you should know what you had to say was WRONG!


259 posted on 07/01/2005 7:45:42 AM PDT by PhiKapMom (AOII Mom -- J.C. for OK Governor in '06; Allen/Watts in 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: SittinYonder

That Does not matter.We have to nominate a true conservative anyway.


260 posted on 07/01/2005 7:45:51 AM PDT by Gipper08 (Mike Pence in 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 251 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 221-240241-260261-280 ... 1,281-1,297 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.

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