Posted on 07/06/2005 8:00:47 AM PDT by inquest
So, a new poll is up already. Since I was among those who voted for Brown in the last one, I'll have to make a new choice. Unfortunately, I know very little about the other candidates on the list. When I have time, I'll Google around for any scraps of information, but in the meantime all honest and constructive comments are welcome.
My Number One criterion in the new pick is that he should have to give due respect to the 4th amendment and other limitations on the arbitrary power of government. This is especially important in today's WOT environment. Even if you trust the current administration not to abuse our rights, SCOTUS appointments are for life, and there will be a number of successive presidents, some Democrats perhaps, others RINOs who'd be nominated out of fear of losing to the Democrats. In such an instatnce, we need to know we'd have someone on the court who's on the side of freedom-loving Americans.
Other than that, the nominee should be able to read and understand the Constitution, without twisting its words hither and yonder to see what kinds of bizarre meanings could be squeezed out of them. In particular, they should know that sometimes the law might say something they themselves might not approve of, but they'd still have to apply it based on what it says, not what they want it to say. Also, they should not constantly and slavishly follow precedents that they know are incorrect. They need to have the fortitude to overturn the ones they know are wrong.
I haven't voted, because I think the question is flawed. I'd prefer that Thomas be elevated to Chief, and someone be found to replace him as an Associate, but there's no clear choice for that except for the generic 'other'.
I voted for Michael Luttig.
That's all I'm saying. You hose yourself -- the Republicans have done this at least three times that I know of, going back to Nixon's appointees -- playing games and nominating "young and vigorous" (i.e., "I want at least 40 years outta this guy") persons who are not on the Court to CJ, versus going with a known quantity for CJ.
Elevate someone like Estrada or Gonzales or Brown, and he could turn into the next Souter -- and then you're screwed, doubly so, because you passed up two rock-solid men already on the Court to nominate the less-known quantity!
I want to drive the liberals mad! Somebody please suggest Zell as a serious nominee to do just exactly that!!! I can just see him and Biden going toe-to-toe in the confirmation hearings!!!
One of the things that bother me is the liberal litmus tests. In the case of Luttig his fathers killer was executed therefore the litmus test is the death penalty. The ever expanding litmus test will continue to get out of hand.
If someone like Ted Olson were nominated the litmus test would be the fact that his wife was killed in the 9/11 attack so he couldn't be trusted to deal with terrorists fairly.
I meant, the GOP's been disappointed with the subsequent voting records of at least three of their nominees for AJ, not CJ. The point being, you may be buying yourself a nasty surprise by nominating an outsider to be the new Chief Justice when Rehnquist steps down. The case in point par excellence being Earl Warren, former Republican governor of California, who was rewarded with the Chief Justice seat for throwing the presidential nomination to Eisenhower (and thus screwing the conservatives, who wanted Bob Taft of Ohio), who was the candidate of the Old Money and their New York lawyers, as described by Theodore White in his The Making of the President books.
This would be a good place to repeat my misgivings about Brown's depth or sincerity of support for the Second Amendment and RKBA, having voted on one such case on the appellate bench in California, in which she identified the issues and then turned aside from addressing an obvious incubus on 2A rights and instead went on to cast her vote based on other issues. The party appealing to his 2A rights lost.
Well, that's not a throwaway, but keep two things in mind:
a. By endorsing Zell, you endorse liberal "strategic" thinking about the Court. Lots of them wanted Clinton to nominate Mario Cuomo to the High Court because he could politick and logroll and steal votes.
b. He's still a Democrat and would "come home" on some issues in ways bound to displease you.
I suppose you're right. Arnold Schwartzenegger made a pretty good sounding speech at the convention, too. As it turns out... That was all pure unadulterated BS, too!!! (I like your tagline)(grin)
"...religion, morality and self-government, which are indispensable to humans and were the guiding intentions of the country's founding fathers, have disappeared in the 20th century. I am hopeful that with the debacles of the twentieth century ... we can recover the original intentions of the founders of the Constitution," Jones said.
See #3.
What are his judicial qualifications? Please remember that the mere fact that he supported Bush's reelection doesn't alter the fact that he's still a Democrat who believes in big government.
I watched CBS news beating up Ahnuld the other evening on their sadism workshop called the Evening News.....they were gloating over his political difficulties. I think they all must pull wings off flies as a hobby.
Of course, if Ahnuld fails, the state of California goes broke, and then all those Democratic client groups are just screwed. It would serve them right.
Now, if FR were to post a poll asking whom we'd least like to see nominated, I'd bet that could get interesting...
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.