Posted on 07/01/2005 8:04:23 AM PDT by CWW
Will the Gang of 14's judicial filibuster compromise old?
Don't bet on it.
This is the Democrat party's worst nightmare. The moderate Justice O'Connor, rather than the conservative, retires. Justice O'Connor has personally been responsible for more 5-4 decisions on hot-button social issues than any sitting Justice (although Justice Kennedy is starting to giver her a run for her money). Examples -- Lawrence case (Sodomy); Kuhl Case (Eminent Domain); Webster (abortion), Ten Commandments, and the list goes on.
Now the democrats have a serious problem -- they have 7 party members who promised not to filibuster absent "extraordinary circumstances."
It is a near certainty that President Bush will nominate a candidate more conservative that Justice O'Connor. So, will the nomination of any pro-life nominee by definition constitute an "extraordinary circmstnace"? Clearly, the answer is "YES"!
Just wait -- the refrain from here on out is going to be that the President should appoint a moderate to replace a moderate to maintain "balance" on the Court. It's so predictable.
And the 7 Dems who agreed to the Filibuster compromise will be under unbelievable, tremendous pressure to break the deal if the President nominates a pro-life candidate. If the "Groups" (e.g., NARAL, Planned Parenthhod, PAW, ACLU, etc.) don't back you as a democrat, your political career is toast.
My prediction -- It is going to get ugly fast! For dems, too much of their liberal orthodoxy is tied up in the Court.
The only ones we need to concentrate on are the seven Dwarfs, and the weak kneed Dems up for re-election in red states next year. they will NOT survive an election when they filibuster a constitutionalist SC nomination.
I agree, the weak link in this process is the squishy 3 or 4 moderate GOP senators....not Bush, he'll give us a good nominee.
Fred Barnes said Democrats will not filibuster, that the country would not stand for it. We'll see.
A nice dream....but Ann has never been a judge.
I nominate John Bolton.
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
C Boydon Gray says no matter who Bush picks, it won't over-turn Roe v Wade, so he sees no reason for a filibuster. Jonathan Turley says some conservatives don't like Gonzales because some of his decisions in Texas, but Turley says, make no mistake about it, Gonzales is very conservative.
Turley says J. Michael Luttig is very favored by Conservatives. He also says this O'connor resignation is a nightmare come true for the democrats.
Sandra day O'Connor hand delivered her letter of resignation to the President.
Try Jerry Smith, appointed by Reagan to the 5th Circuit in 1988 at the age of 41.
(QUESTIONER:)" In a span of just over two months in 1996, you issued two blockbuster opinions: Hopwood v. Texas, 78 F.3d 932 (5th Cir. 1996) (holding that the University of Texas Law School could not use racial preferences in deciding which students to admit); and Castano v. American Tobacco Co., 84 F.3d 734 (5th Cir. 1996) (decertifying the largest class action ever attempted in federal court). What single opinion of yours -- majority, concurring, dissenting, or other -- do you find to be the most memorable?
(ANSWER BY JERRY SMITH:) Hopwood.
(QUESTIONER) How do you define the term "judicial activism," and is it ever proper for a federal appellate judge to consider his or her personal preference as to the outcome of a case (other than the preference to decide the case correctly in accordance with the law) in deciding how to rule?
ANSWER BY JERRY SMITH) Judicial activism could mean many things, but primarily it is the substitution of the court's view for the policymaker's view, in cases where the decision properly should rest with the policymaker, or substituting the court's view for what the Constitution says, where a constitutional provision is at stake. A judge should not consider his or her personal preference as to outcome, any more than an umpire should call balls and strikes based on which team is his or her favorite. "
If the keep their word on the deal, their heads will explode because the majority the court will shift to the right -- especially on social issues.
This decision and Pick by Bush is NOT ACCEPTABLE!! It will send millions of immigrant, minority, same-sex married women into the back allies of foreign countries without any REAL coalition ! and set back Human Rights! Privacy Issues! and make a QUAGMIRE! and OCCUPATION! of a Failed Bush Administration ALREADY in a CRISIS! and ONLY benefit Halliburton and Cabal of Oil Monopoly Companies that made capitalists RICH with holding down the Majority of Working Single Household Americans! and the SUV drivers!
Take my WARNING!! This will only EXCELL Global Warming and bring a plague of Locust o'ver the land!!
Thank You.
p.s...er...who did President Bush nominate again??
They dont have a spine and neither does Bush
My vote for post of the day. LOL
I pray to GOD that Bush doesn't disappoint us on these appointements.
JRB , a great pick , but udefeatable , I never count my eggs now days til they're laid , you're already counting chicks . This is sure to become a fiasco , I'll bet . The dims are so angry at everything the potus represents .
You're joking right? Maybe you missed the /sarcasm tag.
The Libs would settle for Alberto Gonzalez -- who would be a O'Connor clone on social issues.
And maybe you missed that I was reporting what Jonathan Turley said.
My first choice would be Mark Levin , author of the book "Men in Black" a constitutional specialist if ever there was one .. .. ..
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.