Judgment Day: "What President Bush needs to keep in mind with the Supreme Court"

Weekly Standard ^ | 7/18/2005 | Fred Barnes

[EQAndyBuzz]

Get it over with. Appoint Mark Levin and put the final stake through the hearts of what is left of the Democrat party.

[Graybeard58]

Democrats would need the cooperation of three of their seven colleagues who joined the Gang of 14

And that means the Republicans will only need two to return to the fold and Cheney as the tie breaker.

I think McCain will see the error of his ways and vote like a Republican on this. One more and we are over the top.

I can't wait to hear drunk fat ted and others crying.

[xzins]

Barnes nails it.

The President has promised. There is no issue more dear to my heart and to America. The War on Terror can even be said to be captive to the whim of the black-robed oligarchs.

We must replace them with constitutionalists.

[traviskicks]

looks like this is a repeat of Bob Novaks column.

For what its worth, I'm for JRB:
http://www.neoperspectives.com/janicerogersbrown.htm

[Bear_Slayer]

I'm for JRB:

Judge Roy Bean?

:-)

[Raycpa]

There will be a filibuster and there will be the ability to nuke it. The only question is will there be another face saving deal implemented before the nuke is exercised.

[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

"For Texas... and for MISS LILLY LANGTREE!" :)

[Bush gal in LA]

''put the final stake through the hearts of what is left of the Democrat party.''............(luv that line)! LOL

[advance_copy]

If the RATS filibuster a Supreme Court nomination, they will get pulverized in the 2006 election. President Bush has said he will nominate a strict constructionist in the mold of Scalia or Thomas, and that nominee (or those nominees) WILL be confirmed; otherwise the RATS will pay dearly. If they try to filibuster, we win. If they don't, we win. Whoo hoo!

[advance_copy]

President Bush has said he will nominate a strict constructionist in the mold of Scalia or Thomas

And remember, this President says what he means and does what he says.

[Cicero]

This is pretty much what I've been saying all along, and I'm glad Fred Barnes is saying it now.

Bush has let us down on some things, but so far he has stood firm on judicial appointments. Now they have to go all out and push them through, because time is running out.

[Ol' Sparky]

"That's what I campaigned on and that's what I want to do."

If the President keeps his word, he'll leave a lasting legacy and might be remembered as Ronald Reagan is.

[grondram]

I think Barnes is over-simplifying. The stakes are higher for the SCOTUS than for any other appointment and thus you can't count on the gang of seven behaving the same way...

I have a question - why not appoint a supremely qualified guy who is also totally experienced with the worst that can be thrown at a nominee... somebody who won't surprise in a negative way because he has written extensively on all the deep questions of our day and conssitantly comes out on the ethical and consitutional side --- Robert Bork.

>>Robert Heron Bork (born March 1, 1927) is a conservative American legal scholar and former judge who advocates an originalist interpretation of the United States Constitution.

Robert Bork, in books such as The Tempting of America, argues that the Constitution should be interpreted based on the Framers' original understanding of the constitutional text. He is an advocate for judicial restraint, reiterating that it was the Court's task to adjudicate, not to legislate, from the bench. He has written: "We are increasingly governed not by law or elected representatives but by an unelected, unrepresentative, unaccountable committee of lawyers applying no will but their own." Bork's views have influenced the legal opinions of conservative judges such as Antonin Scalia and Chief Justice William Rehnquist.<<

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Bork

[Flux Capacitor]

The best choice for the Supreme Court, as portrayed by the worst. :)

-Dan

[Tom_Busch]

Maybe I'm over-simplifying things, but even if Bush gets two conservatives, I don't think it changes that much really. Neither O'Connor or Rehnquist voted for property seizures in Kelo v. New London. It seems to me that one of the liberals has to be replaced too, or we get more of the same.

I just wonder if Stevens and Ginsburg will be able to hold out till Bush is gone. If so, the election for POTUS in 2008 will be huge.

[Lexinom]

Worse yet, imagine if the confirmation is in process DURING election '08.

[grondram]

There are some 5-4 splits that could be effected... like abortion issues.

[bimbo]

And remember, this President says what he means and does what he says.

I can even make the "balance" arguement for Bush ... A strict constitutional constructionist is needed to balance those ideologues Clinton appointed (Breyer and Ginzberg).