| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 07/19/2005 5:18:23 PM PDT by Admin Moderator, reason:
new thread http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1446387/posts |
Posted on 07/19/2005 9:23:04 AM PDT by Howlin
Edited on 07/19/2005 5:12:12 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
PBR > Busch Light!
Imagine the outrage in the MSM and Rat party if the GOP started a Death Watch on Byrd like they did with Thurmond and Helms.
I thought Clinton wasn't in office anymore.
Brazille always looks like that!
Don't confuse the hysterical with facts! LOL, just kidding!
President Bush is reading this thread, keeping count, and nominating the person most often suggested.
He sure had fun at the presser today when asked about the nomination. Sort of a "I know something you don't know" kind of cheerfulness. It was fun.
That makes as much sense as anything I've read on here today.......LOL.
Now I am off to venture to CRABTREE -- yes, at 5........
Be back later.
Yeah... but she usually looks that way. Has she ever been "happy"?
Of course he isn't at a computer. His staff mans the computers. But if his decision wasn't affected by politics, I don't think it would have taken this long.
http://corner.nationalreview.com/05_07_17_corner-archive.asp#069966
ODE TO JOY [Ramesh Ponnuru]
The Washington Post reported earlier (I can't find the link) on Edith Brown Clement: "Known as a conservative and a strict constructionist in legal circles, Clement also has eased fears among abortion-rights advocates. She has stated that the Supreme Court 'has clearly held that the right to privacy guaranteed by the Constitution includes the right to have an abortion' and that 'the law is settled in that regard.'"
I don't believe for a minute that these statements have "eased fears" among anyone in the abortion-rights groups, and they shouldn't inspire fears among pro-lifers--which, judging from some of the blog commentaries and emails I've been reading, they are. That is precisely the stance that an appeals-court judge has to take, and it says nothing about how that judge would rule if she were on the Supreme Court. Indeed, if an appeals-court nominee didn't say something like that before the Senate, she wouldn't get confirmed. So for pro-lifers to demand that Supreme Court nominees never have made such statements is self-defeating: It means that almost everyone on the bench would have to be wiped off the list of Supreme Court hopefuls. No anti-Roe justice would be able to rise through the ranks.
Even Bill Pryor, who said Roe was an abomination, rightly promised to accept the authority of the Supreme Court over the lower courts in this matter.
There may be a case against Clement, but this isn't it.
WHAT IF IT WERE ASHCROFT? [Ramesh Ponnuru]
I take it that most pro-lifers would be for confirming John Ashcroft to the Supreme Court if Bush nominated him. Yet Ashcroft went further than Clement in his 2001 confirmation testimony. A few pro-lifers and legal conservatives raised objections to Ashcroft's comments--including me--but they weren't deal-breakers then and more defensible comments shouldn't be now.
Posted at 03:19 PM
SCOTUS as of Election Day 2008
SCALIA
THOMAS
KENNEDY
SOUTER
BREYER
Edith Jones
Janice Rogers Brown
Luttig
Owens (or Gonzalez)
LOL! You're killing me today. Keep it up, and you WILL owe me a new keyboard.
Red state is reporting that staffers on the judiciary committee are telling people it isn't clement.
John King also reported on CNN that she was one of the finalists but isn't the nominee.
LOL! If President Bush doesn't nominate Larry Klayman, I look for Klayman to sue him.
Frist could have a letter from President Bush in his pocket telling him who he is nominating and he would give the same answer.
Hannity keeps mentioning Edith Jones. I missed the beginning of his show...Is Jones who Bush selected?
It's certainly not affected by the politics between this morning and 9 PM tonight.
When I want quantity and cheap I purchase Southpaw.
"I thought Clinton wasn't in office anymore."
Even Reagan bowed to political pressures in judicial appointments. Why do you think the courts are such a mess today? Political pressure.
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.