Posted on 07/02/2005 5:36:59 PM PDT by ConservativeMan55
No, after Peggy's death, Goldwater remarried, and I believe that the second wife may have been the age of one of his sons.
Here is an explanation of Goldwater's Judaism, though he was reared in his mother's Episcopalian faith:
"A piece of Arizona Jewish history." That's how Susan Goldwater described her now late husband to a Jewish News reporter in a 1994 interview.
And although Barry Goldwater, memorialized this week {1998}, neither identified nor practiced as a Jew, his life resonated with qualities that define the American Jewish experience.
His Jewish grandfather, "Big Mike" Goldwasser, left his native Poland in the mid-19th century to avoid conscription in the Russian army. Lured to America by aspirations for a better life, he and his brother tried their hands at several failed businesses, including a California saloon, before setting their sites on the Arizona Territory. They filled a mule-drawn wagon with goods, and then set out for Gila City, a mining camp east of Fort Yuma. Eventually, they established permanent locations in La Paz and nearby Ehrenberg, then stores in Prescott, Bisbee and Phoenix. By the early 1900s, Goldwater's had become Phoenix's leading department store.
Goldwater followed his grandfather and father into the mercantile business, and then pursued a political career, in which he soon established himself as the voice of American conservatism. His entrepreneurial spirit, Western individualism and intense love of freedom were the legacy of the Goldwasser family, even as he was raised in the religion of his Episcopalian mother, and even as his political philosophy diverged from his family's more liberal democratic bent. (Goldwater's uncle Morris, a close political mentor, was a founding father of the Arizona Democratic Party.)
In recent years, the senator's deviation from the prevailing Republican party line reflected as much the privilege of a crusty politician and the principle of a plain-spoken populist, as the tremendous resiliency of the foundations of democracy he and his Jewish forefathers so cherished.
Goldwater will be remembered by many in the Phoenix Jewish community for his warmth and friendship, for his inherent respect for Jewish tradition and defense of personal freedoms.
Yes, he was a piece of Arizona Jewish history. And he will be missed.
I remember reading somewhere that a Jew can only be born into the faith if his mother was Jewish. With Goldwater, his mother was not Jewish, he cannot be considered a Jew unless he converted to the faith. From what I read here, it's obvious that he never did that, so therefore he cannot considered to be a Jew.
bttt
nah. Too white and too male. As much as I love Dubya he will predictably pick a minority for this slot - most likely hispanic. Not saying its right and Michael would be a great choice. But I give up on these deals and just bend over and say thanks, may I please have another.
Uh-huh.
In which of those categories -- or, where on that continuum -- do you place Clarence Thomas? Antonin Scalia?
Robert Bork?
Janice Rogers Brown?
(Just curious.)
Oh, one last question: Is your real name "Arlen Specter"?
Similarly, my very first thought upon hearing the news of this vacancy was that Dubya will eliminate well over 50% of the qualified "strict constructionists" by insisting the nominee be a woman.
Of course, it's a no-win situation. If he doesn't, it's an affront to women. If he does, he's pandering.
Scalia is the perfect Sup. Ct. justice. While I disagree with some of his positions, I agree with many: eg; his recent joining of the majority in Exxon v. Allapattah Services, Inc. I have met him at a social function and argued before him (and the other justices) and found him courteous, thoughtful and wise even though the decision was contrary to my client's interest. He is without doubt the brightest and most articulate justice on the court today.
Justice Thomas is, in my opinion, incapable of independent, critical thought on complex legal issues. As such, he is precisely the type of ideologically driven justice that is so anathema to the far right. But they love him becasue he is their ideologue.
Janice Rogers Brown is an unknown quanity and I thus have no opinion of her and I am not willing to simply accept the spin on her by those who are now running at the mouth on her as a judge.
All we have a right to expect from a judge, or justice, is that they listen carefully, read the briefs soberly and base their decision on either the clear words of the statute or, if ambiguous, as most doeputed cases are, decide on the most reasonable interpretation in the factual context of the case.
bttt
It should be judicial integrity that drives the nomination and confirmation process. In the Supreme Court, and indeed all federal courts, the question for the justices and judges is how a specific case arising out of a specific controversy should be decided. The governing criteria for court rulings are whether the conduct at issue was constitutional or in compliance with whatever statutes and case law precedents might be relevant.
By contrast, a political decision made by either the executive or legislative branches is just that, political. Those decisions are made based upon whatever logic, history, sociology, or other considerations that move the executive or legislative politicians. In cases like those having distinctly different interest or ideologically driven supporters (abortion, church/state implications, and the like), the questions for justices and judges would not be the same as those propelling the executive or legislator who apply the interests of their constituents with their own in determining which efforts to support or oppose.
The hope and expectation is that executives and legislators would answer the question of whether the proposed act is useful, fair, intelligent and productive of the common good.
Contrariwise, the question for a court, especially the Supreme Court, would be: Is the executive or legislative policy in compliance with the organic doctrinaire limits imposed by the Constitution, treaties or legislation that comprise the supreme law of the land. In our tripartite system of government with the three branches sharing equal constitutional power, the underlying philosophy that permeates the different roles, the concept is that the person who would vote, let’s say, against the right of abortion (to choose a hot-button issue) if he or she were a legislator, would uphold it as constitutional if sitting as a federal judge or Supreme Court justice. To legal purists, this is more than a nice technicality; it is an essential ingredient of the exquisite design in the Constitution of a balanced government.
That notwithstanding, it has been clear throughout our history that most presidents have attempted to tailor their court appointments to correspond to their own political philosophy in hopes that close and contentious issues that come before the court will be decided in a manner consistent with the administration’s political desires.
That said, every judicial nominee seeks to assure the Senate committee examining his or her acceptance that, irrespective of their own political history and philosophical orientation, once they were serving on the court they could decide the cases objectively and without any favorable inclination or influence of their subjective opinion.
Constitutional purists would consider a president’s attempt to play politics with judicial nominations an offense against the fundamental design of our Constitution. But, as disappointing as it may be to the jurisprudential purist, virtually all presidents have put their assumptions about a potential judicial nominee’s political views and their likeliness to support the president’s views at the top of the list of qualifications they consider. And, it is not likely that presidents,and in particular, this president will change that predisposition in the future.
Wow.
That was said more eloquently than I could have ever put it.
Hey, thanks... I believe that we're in a distinct minority here.
bttt
bump back at you, do you approve Roberts?
Ummmmm.
I really don't know enough about him.
So far I like what I see. He's a stealth nominee.
Same here, I haven't found anything I haven't liked so far. Only time will tell but generally I trust Dubya's judgement.
So far I like what I see. He's a stealth nominee.
I have to admit, I like President Bush's pick in this. It's a white male when everybody expected a woman (or a minority). The Left believes in quotas, but it shows that we believe that the most qualified person should get the job regardless of race and/or gender.
Luttig, Jones, Brown. All three are originalists, if I have gathered my facts correctly.
Luttig seems to be the best "scholar", again, if I have gathered my facts correctly.
Any of the three would be fine with me.
If it is Mel Martinez or some other liberal, we need to march on Washington and shut the place down.
Luttig, Jones, Brown. All three are originalists, if I have gathered my facts correctly.
Luttig seems to be the best "scholar", again, if I have gathered my facts correctly.
Any of the three would be fine with me.
If it is Mel Martinez or some other liberal, we need to march on Washington and shut the place down.
Luttig, Jones, Brown. All three are originalists, if I have gathered my facts correctly.
Luttig seems to be the best "scholar", again, if I have gathered my facts correctly.
Any of the three would be fine with me.
If it is Mel Martinez or some other liberal, we need to march on Washington and shut the place down.
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.