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

Skip to comments.

Republican appointees disappoint again (Phyllis Schlafly)
Townhall.com ^ | 7/4/05 | Phyllis Schlafly

Posted on 07/04/2005 8:29:39 AM PDT by blitzgig

The Supreme Court wrapped up one of its most disappointing terms in years. Plagued by Chief Justice Rehnquist's absence due to illness, the other justices behaved like the gang that could not shoot straight.

The Supreme Court banished the Ten Commandments from courthouses in McCreary County v. American Civil Liberties Union, and ruled against private property in Kelo v. City of New London. The term would have been a complete disaster if Justice Stephen G. Breyer, a Clinton-appointee, had not surprisingly voted to save the Ten Commandments displayed on the Texas State Capitol grounds in Van Orden v. Perry.

The grounds of the Texas Capitol include 17 monuments and 21 historical markers honoring "people, ideals, and events that compose Texan identity." One monument was the Ten Commandments, and the Supreme Court was asked to order its removal based on the Establishment Clause. Appointees by Republican Presidents Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan and the first George Bush shockingly wanted to censor the Ten Commandments and force Texas to uproot it.

The Ten Commandments had sat there for nearly two generations with nary a complaint, but Justice David H. Souter would have removed it saying that the lack of complaint for decades is meaningless. "Suing a State over religion puts nothing in a plaintiff's pocket ... I doubt that a slow walk to the courthouse, even one that took 40 years, is much evidentiary help in applying the Establishment Clause."

--snip--

The only good news is that the Supreme Court rendered only 76 full decisions in the past year, far fewer than its average of a decade ago. Just imagine the damage that could have been done had it worked harder!

(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...


TOPICS: Editorial
KEYWORDS: judiciary; kelo; mccreary; phyllisschlafly; propertyrights; ruling; scotus; supremecourt; tencommandments
"The only good news is that the Supreme Court rendered only 76 full decisions in the past year, far fewer than its average of a decade ago. Just imagine the damage that could have been done had it worked harder!"

LOL. Love this line!

1 posted on 07/04/2005 8:29:41 AM PDT by blitzgig
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: blitzgig

Yes, it is and think of how wonderful it would be if we could get Congress to "work less"....lol


2 posted on 07/04/2005 8:36:53 AM PDT by Txsleuth (Mark Levin for Supreme Court Justice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blitzgig
Phyllis Schlafly

You go girl

Love that woman

3 posted on 07/04/2005 8:39:34 AM PDT by Mister Baredog ((Minuteman at heart, couch potato in reality))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Mrs. Schlafly is 100% correct. Republicans like Orin Hatch simply don't have the will the Democrats have. Take Teddy Kennedy. Anyone else should have resigned after Chappaquidick, yet this moral leper acts like he's the conscience of the left.

Bad Supreme Court justices serve as lasting reminders of the Presidents that appoint them. Take John Paul Stevens, appointed by Gerald Ford, the dumbest President in U.S. history.

Unfortunately, I fear Alberto Gonzales has the potential to be another Stevens.
4 posted on 07/04/2005 8:42:06 AM PDT by BW2221
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BW2221

Someone on Chris Wallace's show said yesterday that conservatives fear that "Gonzales" is Spanish for "Souter"....good line.


5 posted on 07/04/2005 8:45:36 AM PDT by kittymyrib
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: blitzgig
lawsuits against religion now cluttering our courts are fueled by a federal law allowing enormous attorney's fees to the winners

This law amounts to legal extortion, transferring money from local taxpayers to the pockets of lawyers ... like the ACLU. Unfortunately, the lawyers who comprise congress are not likely to change it as long as political contributions keep coming in from the lawyers' associations. It's a corrupt system folks.

6 posted on 07/04/2005 9:23:31 AM PDT by layman (Card Carrying Infidel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blitzgig

Rehnquist's illness had nothing to do with the decisions of this Court.


7 posted on 07/04/2005 9:37:03 AM PDT by OldFriend (AMERICAN WARS SET MEN FREE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BW2221

Gonzales is called Souter-in-waiting, but you are on to something: he could just as easily be Stevens-in-waiting too!


8 posted on 07/04/2005 9:47:14 AM PDT by Theodore R. (Cowardice is forever!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: BW2221

Orrin G. Hatch is also known for his close personal friendship with the popular EMK.


9 posted on 07/04/2005 9:48:05 AM PDT by Theodore R. (Cowardice is forever!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: blitzgig
I suspect one big problem here is human nature. While the average individual can correctly identify up to 2500 people he or she actually interacts with 25 at most.

When a SC Justice comes to Washington they lose their usual conservative friends and supporters and are at the continuous mercy of the liberal MSM as well as the legal establishment.

As far as I know only Richard Nixon realized this fundamental facet of human nature. He wondered if Harry Blackmun's wife would succumb to liberal blandishments. She did and the rest is history.

Even POTUS has a support system of at most 25. This can include family and friends but the danger always is that as a POTUS becomes a celebrity the MSM and being loved by all becomes the paramount, unspoken goal of the Administration. Thus far, President Bush has resisted this blandishment. Great for him and great for us!

10 posted on 07/04/2005 9:51:59 AM PDT by shrinkermd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blitzgig

Down with SCOTUS!


11 posted on 07/04/2005 10:37:31 AM PDT by lilylangtree
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lilylangtree
Coburn introduces Parents right to know act.
12 posted on 07/04/2005 10:39:13 AM PDT by ConservativeMan55 (DON'T FIRE UNTIL YOU SEE THE WHITES OF THE CURTAINS THEY ARE WEARING ON THEIR HEADS !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Mister Baredog; blitzgig; sheltonmac; Mid-State Constitution Party; blackie; abigail2; AnnaZ; ...

Thanks for posting this.


13 posted on 07/12/2005 1:03:59 PM PDT by The_Eaglet (Conservative chat: http://searchirc.com/search.php?F=exact&T=chan&N=33&I=conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

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