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

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 421-440441-460461-480 ... 1,281-1,297 next last
To: twin2
You wrote:"petal to the metal". I believe the phrase is "pedal to the metal". It refers to the effect of mashing down on the accelerator on your car until it is all the way against the floor or firewall. Maximum effort, speed and acceleration.
441 posted on 07/01/2005 8:05:22 AM PDT by Jack Black
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
Someone suggested last week that Janice Rogers Brown would be a perfect replacement for O'Connor.

That's what I'm hoping but I fear it will be Gonzales

442 posted on 07/01/2005 8:05:26 AM PDT by Tribune7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: demlosers
Outta be fun when the rats go insane! LoL!

What makes you think it will be THEM having the insanity issues? LOL I'm gonna flip out just listening to the daily news nonsense.

443 posted on 07/01/2005 8:05:30 AM PDT by madison10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 427 | View Replies]

Comment #444 Removed by Moderator

To: Alberta's Child
There'll be a whole lot of 4-4 decisions if that's the case, and then there's a possibility that another seat on the court is vacated in the meantime.

Sounds good to me.

445 posted on 07/01/2005 8:05:52 AM PDT by demlosers (Allegra: Do not believe the garbage the media is feeding you back home.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: Soul Seeker

Look, we can argue all day. Remember there is a difference between an opinion and an agenda. I'm sure we both want the same results, I do not think we will get them. In the end we will see how the Bush-led GOP and the Senate fight. I say they cave at some point, maybe even in the initial nomination. When it is done, I'm sure we can then argue if it really is Bush's fault or just the weak Senators. I say there is plenty or blame and shame to go around. Again talk is cheap, Bush talked a big game with Estrada but wound up lacking.


446 posted on 07/01/2005 8:05:56 AM PDT by over3Owithabrain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 417 | View Replies]

To: PhiKapMom
Fred Barnes says republicans are not expecting a filibuster on a Supreme Court nominees. Good grief, I hope they are expecting every possible obstacle from the dems.

Arlen Spector is an embarrassment! Why the hell would he think it important that he run to the microphones, that anyone gives a rip what he thinks on this?

447 posted on 07/01/2005 8:05:57 AM PDT by YaYa123 (@I Will Support President Bush on his Supreme Court nominees.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 259 | View Replies]

To: Tennessean4Bush

Me too, but I think they will be carried out feet first as long as there is a Rep President in the WH.


448 posted on 07/01/2005 8:06:08 AM PDT by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 422 | View Replies]

To: Rudyard Kipling

"Gonzales is a mystery as well as Miguel Estrada. Just like Souter was a mystery, and conservatives rallied behind him while liberals fought.
We need a someone who has a record we could easily interpet. Bill Pryor perhaps."

Excellent point. It simply will not do to appoint someone just because it will be easy to have him confimed. The easier the confirmation, the more likely the nominee is to be a spineless, wishy-washy justice. (Otherwise, the Dims would oppose him.)

Not only should a proven track record be required, but ironclad assurances must be received in grillings in private meetings over just where the candidate stands on important constitutional issues.

If Mr. Bush doesn't have the guts to do this, we will reap the unpleasant harvest for years.


449 posted on 07/01/2005 8:06:10 AM PDT by reelfoot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 405 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
At the time of Bork's nomination there were many Republican senators who were adamantly opposed to having Bork on the court -- mainly because his role in the Watergate affair indicated a lack of principle, an excess of political ambition, or both.

40 Republican senators voted to confirm Judge Bork, and only six voted against confirmation. That doesn't seem to prove that "many Republican senators" were adamantly opposed.

450 posted on 07/01/2005 8:06:15 AM PDT by Mike Bates (Irish Alzheimer's victim: I only remember the grudges.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 278 | View Replies]

To: kabar

Where are the Dems?


451 posted on 07/01/2005 8:06:17 AM PDT by ken5050
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 432 | View Replies]

To: alessandrofiaschi


It was Warren Rudmond who pushed Souter, not Sununu.


452 posted on 07/01/2005 8:06:18 AM PDT by onyx (Pope John Paul II - May 18, 1920 - April 2, 2005 = SANTO SUBITO!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 370 | View Replies]

To: eyespysomething

I say Ted Olsen. No senator in his right mind would strongly oppose a nominee who's wife was killed in 911.


453 posted on 07/01/2005 8:06:27 AM PDT by SOSCEO
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Reagan79

"Actually your thoughts about McCain is brilliant"

Who me? Brilliant! Wow!


454 posted on 07/01/2005 8:06:34 AM PDT by InspiredPath1 (I'll shut up now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 225 | View Replies]

To: samantha

Thanks samantha, I was typing so fast and I was not thinking. Plus I got up from my desk and 400 posts have come and gone!


455 posted on 07/01/2005 8:06:41 AM PDT by twin2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: OXENinFLA

Specter does not look well.Cancer has gotten the best of him.


456 posted on 07/01/2005 8:06:48 AM PDT by since1868
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 439 | View Replies]

To: YaYa123

Just think of all the MSM whose 4 day weekend plans are totally screwed up..


457 posted on 07/01/2005 8:06:57 AM PDT by ken5050
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 447 | View Replies]

To: since1868

chemo


458 posted on 07/01/2005 8:07:28 AM PDT by Tree of Liberty (requiescat in pace, President Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 456 | View Replies]

To: PhiKapMom


I am thinking your same delicious thought...lol. Hoodwinked Rats. LOL-LOL-LOL.


459 posted on 07/01/2005 8:07:30 AM PDT by onyx (Pope John Paul II - May 18, 1920 - April 2, 2005 = SANTO SUBITO!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 395 | View Replies]

To: xzins
Is there such a thing as a "moderate" strict constructionist?

Sort of. It would have to be someone who hasn't made any controversial remarks or writings, but is known to be a constructionist by some other method-- a total unknown, basicly.

460 posted on 07/01/2005 8:07:33 AM PDT by GraniteStateConservative (...He had committed no crime against America so I did not bring him here...-- Worst.President.Ever.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 398 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 421-440441-460461-480 ... 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