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

Skip to comments.

(SCOTUS) On Your Garza (Ginsburg Is Very Sick, May Retire After November)
The American Spectator ^ | 7/5/2005 | The Prowler

Posted on 07/04/2005 9:20:24 PM PDT by GOPGuide

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 201-202 next last
To: doug from upland
A 6-3 conservative court? The libs would be driving off bridges.

At least one already has.

121 posted on 07/04/2005 11:35:00 PM PDT by Graymatter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: JLS

----Of course as a presidential advisor, Attorney General or even a Texas Supreme Court Judge, Roe v. Wade was settled law. That is he was in no position to overturn that decision in any of those position and to do his job had to accept the current "settled law."----

Does this noble fealty to the "law" also cover his ruling against parental notification for abortions while on the Texas S.C.?

-Dan

122 posted on 07/04/2005 11:54:59 PM PDT by Flux Capacitor (Trust me. I know what I'm doing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: savagesusie

That's the way I see it! If the Dims oppose a Black woman, they're toast!


123 posted on 07/04/2005 11:56:15 PM PDT by de Buillion (Abortion kills more Democrats than Republicans, More Liberals than Conservatives!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: Flux Capacitor
" It's much too early to know what the last Senate Bush will have to deal with is going to be like, so he should assume this is the best he's going to have. "

I totally agree. He should play it this way. But I will be surprised if the Pubbies don't achieve at least a small gain. Unless things go south in Iraq.

124 posted on 07/05/2005 12:15:14 AM PDT by de Buillion (Abortion kills more Democrats than Republicans, More Liberals than Conservatives!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Flux Capacitor
Does this noble fealty to the "law" also cover his ruling against parental notification for abortions while on the Texas S.C.?

Here is what the Slate thumbnail on the short list says about those cases:

Over a dissent, agreed that a 17-year-old girl could have an abortion without getting her parents' consent. The court was applying a Texas statute allowing an abortion without parental consent if the teenager asking for it "demonstrates that she is mature and sufficiently well informed." In a concurrence, Gonzales argued that the dissent's position—that exceptions to the rule of parental notification should be rare and require a high standard of proof—were policy decisions for the legislature, not the court. To construe the statute more narrowly than the text amounted to "an unconscionable act of judicial activism." (In re Jane Doe, 2000)

In another parental-notification case, the Supreme Court of Texas held that the teenager seeking an abortion had not established that she was sufficiently mature and well informed to do so without telling her parents. Because the girl's hearing took place a few days after the court issued its decision In re Jane Doe, Gonzales wanted to send the case back to the trial court, where the girl would have another chance. He explained that the evidence presented thus far did not prove that she had "thoughtfully considered her alternatives, including adoption and keeping the child" or that telling her parents about the abortion could subject her to emotional abuse. (In re Jane Doe 3, 2000)

If Slate is correct and one such case is him being defferential toward the legislature that made exceptions to the parental notification act broad, I don't see how conservatives can fault him. And wanting to remand another case to the lower courts in light of the prior decision does not seem judicially active to me either.

Is Slate misstating these cases? Is Gonzales getting a bumb rap? Do we know what his personal views on abortion and AA are?

125 posted on 07/05/2005 12:15:45 AM PDT by JLS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: TruthShallSetYouFree
"A 6-3 conservative court? The libs would be driving off bridges. Hopefully, Teddy will be alone this time. "

AND, with electric locks that won't open when wet!

126 posted on 07/05/2005 12:25:26 AM PDT by de Buillion (Abortion kills more Democrats than Republicans, More Liberals than Conservatives!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: JLS

----Is Slate misstating these cases?----

Well, this IS Slate, but let's assume they're not. :)

----Is Gonzales getting a bumb rap? Do we know what his personal views on abortion and AA are?----

Perhaps -- I don't consider ANY teenager who wants an abortion to be "mature and sufficiently well-informed". Period.

-Dan

127 posted on 07/05/2005 12:26:20 AM PDT by Flux Capacitor (Trust me. I know what I'm doing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: GOPGuide

Ginsburg gone would be great. But I'm worried about losing Rehnquist.


128 posted on 07/05/2005 12:28:41 AM PDT by k2blader (Was it wrong to kill Terri Shiavo? YES - 83.8%. FR Opinion Poll.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Graymatter
"Cornyn is now believed to be the President's point person in the Senate to help measure the level of support for potential nominees. "He's the President's 'consultation' guy...""

I think that most/all Freepers will be happy with a Cornyn appointment to the SC. He is 100% ACU as a Senator.

129 posted on 07/05/2005 12:31:08 AM PDT by de Buillion (Abortion kills more Democrats than Republicans, More Liberals than Conservatives!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: All; doug from upland
A 6-3 conservative court?

While a reactionary court might try to legislate to the right, a truly conservative court is not the opposite of a liberal court. A truly conservative court is a moderate court--one that does not actively change things.

130 posted on 07/05/2005 12:33:37 AM PDT by Gondring (I'll give up my right to die when hell freezes over my dead body!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Flux Capacitor

Right but as a judge would you construe the law the legistlature wrote more narrowly to impose your personal view?


131 posted on 07/05/2005 12:37:30 AM PDT by JLS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: LibertarianInExile

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg had undergone chemotherapy and radiation treatment for her colon cancer. Her sigmoid colon was removed on September 11, 1999 for what had been classified as stage-2 cancer. About 75% of stage-2 colon cancer patients are cured. The treatments began in October, 1999 and ended in June of 2000.

Justice Ginsburg who is 69 years of age had been taken ill while teaching this summer on the island of Crete. Her ailment was originally misdiagnosed as acute diverticulitis. This type of misdiagnosis happens fairly often because extensive testing is required to enable the medical professionals to distinguish between the two ailments.

Other justices who have been treated for cancer are John Paul Stevens, 85; Sandra Day O'Connor, 75, William H. Rehnquist

John Paul Stevens, who had prostate cancer, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who was treated for colon cancer, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, whose recent bout of thyroid cancer


******

Justice Ruth Joan Bader Ginsburg (born March 15, 1933) is a United States jurist. Since 1993, she has served as an Associate Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court.

Ginsburg was born Joan Ruth Bader in Brooklyn, New York, the second daughter of Nathan and Celia Bader. Ginsburg's older sister died when she was very young; the neighborhood where she grew up was made up of working-class immigrants, most of them Jewish, Italian, and Irish.

Ginsburg's mother called her "Kiki" and took an active role in Ruth's education, taking her to the library often and applying for scholarships that would allow her to attend college. Celia struggled with cancer throughout Ruth's high school years and died the day before graduation, forcing Ginsburg to withdraw from giving the salutatorian speech she had planned for months. In school, classmates recalled Ginsburg as highly popular and competitive; she joined the twirling squad in high school.

She married Martin D. Ginsburg, a professor of law at Georgetown University Law Center, in 1954, and has a daughter, Jane, and a son, James. She received her B.A. from Cornell University in 1954, attended Harvard Law School, and when her husband accepted a job in New York City, she tranferred to Columbia Law School, where she received her LL.B. degree. She served as a law clerk to the Honorable Edmund L. Palmieri, Judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, from 1959-1961. From 1961-1963, she was a research associate and then associate director of the Columbia Law School Project on International Procedure. She was a Professor of Law at Rutgers University School of Law from 1963-1972, and Columbia Law School from 1972-1980, and a fellow at the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences in Stanford University, California from 1977-1978.

In 1971, Ginsburg was instrumental in launching the Women's Rights Project of the American Civil Liberties Union, and served as the ACLU's General Counsel from 1973-1980, and on the National Board of Directors from 1974-1980. In this position, Ginsburg successfully argued several women's rights cases before the Supreme Court, including 1973's Frontiero v. Richardson.

******


Cancer has had a profound impact on Ginsburg's life. Her mother, Celia Bader, died of cervical cancer the night before young Ruth was to graduate from high school in 1948. Then, a few years after she married Martin Ginsburg in 1954 and while he was still in law school, her husband was diagnosed with testicular cancer. Martin Ginsburg recovered and is a prominent tax lawyer and law professor. They have a grown son and daughter.


132 posted on 07/05/2005 12:37:57 AM PDT by kcvl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Southack
As you said there are many options to get the court one is looking for. Many of these options have been discussed for years. Here is a 'liberal' commentary from 1936 on the Court and Constitution that I posted last week which discusses the most of the options.

The Supreme Court and the Constitution (commentary from 1936)

133 posted on 07/05/2005 12:42:35 AM PDT by TheOtherOne (The scales of Justice are unbalanced.™)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: JLS

Since the judgment rested on the entirely subjective opinion of whether a teenager seeking an abortion can be "mature and sufficiently well-informed", Gonzales, along with the rest of the majority, DID impose his personal view -- a pro-abortion view. And I don't want another such view on the Supreme Court.

-Dan

134 posted on 07/05/2005 12:52:23 AM PDT by Flux Capacitor (Trust me. I know what I'm doing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: k2blader
"Ginsburg gone would be great. But I'm worried about losing Rehnquist. "

Get used to it, he's gotta be gone soon. I too will miss him.

135 posted on 07/05/2005 1:00:07 AM PDT by de Buillion (Abortion kills more Democrats than Republicans, More Liberals than Conservatives!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob

Maybe the President should try to get in 3 decent, God loving, conservative women. If the dems come up against all three they will come off as women haters.


136 posted on 07/05/2005 1:36:27 AM PDT by Bellflower (A new day is Coming!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Bellflower

...and conversely the President will come off a women lover.


137 posted on 07/05/2005 1:37:37 AM PDT by Bellflower (A new day is Coming!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: kcvl
In school, classmates recalled Ginsburg as highly popular and competitive; she joined the twirling squad in high school.

...............................................................

Does anyone have a picture of her as young? I believe she is horribly wicked but I hope she repents before she dies.

138 posted on 07/05/2005 1:47:49 AM PDT by Bellflower (A new day is Coming!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: GOPGuide

It would be a dream come true seeing Stevens (well he's like 100 years old, isn't he?) and Ginsburg retiring. However Dubya shouldn't nominate Gonzales! Unless he gets, hmmmm, let's say 7 vacancies :).


139 posted on 07/05/2005 1:56:46 AM PDT by Tarkin (Janice Rogers Brown to the SCOTUS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Founding Father
although Stevens is a Rockefeller republican

Stevens is not even a Rockefeller republican. Harold Burton and Potter Stewart were Rockefeller republicans but not him. He acted like a "moderate" at the beginning of his tenure (f.ex. supporting death penalty, opposing racial quotas) but now is indistinguishable from Ginsburg. He is practically Jim Jeffords in a robe.

140 posted on 07/05/2005 2:02:44 AM PDT by Tarkin (Janice Rogers Brown to the SCOTUS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 201-202 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