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

To: GOPGuide
Keep in mind *another* option, though it's the Dark Horse: President Bush doesn't have to nominate *anyone* to replace retiring liberals...he certainly doesn't have to nominate them prior to 2007 (when our larger Senate majority will be seated).

Oh sure, he'll replace O'Connor and Rehnquist, but he technically *could* shrink the SCOTUS for a year or two when a liberal retires.

It's just an *option* mind you, but a Conservative Majority on SCOTUS can be accomplished in more than one way...in fact, in a way that bypasses the Senate entirely by simply shrinking the Court for a couple of years.

7 posted on 07/04/2005 9:30:51 PM PDT by Southack (Media Bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Southack

no he names bork and let them fillibuster and then find someone more conservative and let them fillibuster and then even more conservative than that and let them fillibuster (oh in an ideal world)


11 posted on 07/04/2005 9:35:04 PM PDT by JohnLongIsland
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]

To: Southack

"a Conservative Majority on SCOTUS can be accomplished in more than one way...in fact, in a way that bypasses the Senate entirely by simply shrinking the Court for a couple of years."

[salivating at the idea]

Shrink the Court AND shrink the Court's liberals?

[wipes drool from chin]

What a great idea. As long as we can get the next one to resign without the Sandy "f-you clause," you know, the one that says "I'll serve until you replace me." That battleaxe...I hope she lives to 200 and hates every minute of being out of power.


13 posted on 07/04/2005 9:35:54 PM PDT by LibertarianInExile ("Property must be secured or liberty cannot exist." -- John Adams. "F that." -- SCOTUS, in Kelo.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]

To: Southack

I will jump for joy the day Ginsburg retires.


16 posted on 07/04/2005 9:36:15 PM PDT by republican2005
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]

To: Southack
Sort of a reverse Roosevelt, you are saying.

I think the only reason not to appoint is if he can't get the appointments through. Otherwise, get our folks in there as soon as possible.

He needs to appoint at least one, maybe 2 women. A female Chief Justice would we a good idea, but take them where we can get them, Bush has been very good at appointing "minorities" to high positions, expect the trend to continue. Getting Ginsberg out of there and replacing her with a strong conservative would be too good to be true.

I also think that there is no way Ginsberg would go to let a conservative be appointed unless she had to go.

19 posted on 07/04/2005 9:38:41 PM PDT by Fido969 ("The story is true" - Dan Rather)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]

To: Southack

LOL, it's a clever idea. these Justices will usually resign after a new nominee is confirmed, so either that or we'll have to deal with a dead body in the court room :(.


20 posted on 07/04/2005 9:38:50 PM PDT by USAfearsnobody (S.C.O.T.U.S. -- Supreme Court Out of Touch with United States)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]

To: Southack
he certainly doesn't have to nominate them prior to 2007 (when our larger Senate majority will be seated).

Counting our chickens before they are hatched, ey? Having gotten gains so many terms in a row, it may come as a suprise but we can lose seats in 2006. This is especially true if the war doesnt show improvement and the GOP gets bad press for overreaching on SCOTUS debate.

23 posted on 07/04/2005 9:40:50 PM PDT by Dave S
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]

To: Southack
Yeah, well... I want him to appoint Zell Miller and give the libs apoplexy eternally! I want it!! I want it a lot!!!

I could just see ol T. Kennedy and ol hair tranplant pledgerizer puke face!!!

64 posted on 07/04/2005 10:18:23 PM PDT by SierraWasp (Liberal/Media Orchestration is just like Pornography! You recognize it instantly when you see it!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]

To: Southack

Very interesting about creating a more conservative court for a short while. But since stare decisis only applies to liberal decisions, a temporary conservative court will change little.

We need three young conservatives and no stealth leftist if Bush gets three appointments. Imagine if G.H.W. Bush had appointed someone other than Souter?


100 posted on 07/04/2005 10:44:25 PM PDT by JLS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | 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: Southack

What makes you think we're going to pick up seats om 2006? Pubs aren't acting like they want it that badly. They need to not get too tricky right now. Just Govern, dammit.


153 posted on 07/05/2005 5:25:47 AM PDT by johnb838 (It's the socializm, stupid!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]

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