Skip to comments.
LIVE THREAD: SCOTUS Nominee Watch (UPDATE: announcement at 9pm tonight)
Free Republic ^
| July 19, 2005
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]
TICK TOCK...............
Thread Two
TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: bush; bush43; clement; edith; edithbrownclement; edithclement; janicerogersbrown; johnroberts; judicialnominees; judiciary; scotus; term2
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 561-580, 581-600, 601-620 ... 2,661-2,664 next last
To: pulaskibush
I didn't understand the lack of punctuation. Did it say that she is CATHOLIC? hehheh.
581
posted on
07/19/2005 11:06:02 AM PDT
by
johnb838
(Dominus Vobiscum)
To: Phantom Lord
Exactly. Overturning Roe will return the issue to the people and their elected representatives and out of the hands of tyrannical judges.
To: Rutles4Ever
Impossible to say.That's right and nothing will change that fact.
583
posted on
07/19/2005 11:06:24 AM PDT
by
Mister Baredog
((Minuteman at heart, couch potato in reality))
To: ken5050
Now that's one that my AI thread friends might enjoy! LOL!
To: Howlin
Do you have a suggestion exactly what we can do about that?
585
posted on
07/19/2005 11:07:21 AM PDT
by
shield
(The Greatest Scientific Discoveries of the Century Reveal God!!!! by Dr. H. Ross, Astrophysicist)
To: Rutles4Ever
I agree that I am very disappointed in the president's choice, if indeed it is Clement. A cursory review of her record reveals no clue regarding her position on the crucial social issues of abortion, homosexual marriage, affirmative action, or the role of religion in society.
I fear that the president has decided to make an appointment that does not provoke controversy from the left, which translates into another disastrous republican Supreme Court choice (think Souter, O'Connor, Stevens and Kennedy).
I am disgusted.
To: hobbes1
"Right now, Today, Roe is settled law. That doesn't mean however, should a Different Case, with different facts come before the court that an analagous case wouldnt be decided differently."
To simple me, "settled law" sounds like "precedent" and a person would have to expect the jurists who says, "Roe is 'settled law'", would continue right down the path of the Roe v. Wade decision. Especially when the statement is coupled with the one about the right to privacy providing a constitutional guarantee to abortion.
These type of phrases, IMHO, would not be coming from someone who can be expected to reverse course on the unspeakable crime of abortion. I am getting a little sick feeling in my gut on this one.
To: ken5050
my recollection was the influence of John Sununu
To: johnb838
589
posted on
07/19/2005 11:07:52 AM PDT
by
defconw
(ALLEN IN 08)
To: Congressman Billybob
When a judge says "settled law", they see it as more than just binding due to court hierarchy. It requires legislation to reverse. When "settled law" is a ruling on the Constitution by the Supreme Court, it requires an amdendment to change. I take this description from what I've heard Ken Starr say.
590
posted on
07/19/2005 11:08:18 AM PDT
by
advance_copy
(Stand for life, or nothing at all)
To: hobbes1
Hmmmmm...never thought of it that way...MAKES lots of sense..;)
To: Ol' Sparky
To: defconw
Well, unless she is a Kerry Catholic, that says something to me. Doesn't it you?
593
posted on
07/19/2005 11:09:00 AM PDT
by
johnb838
(Dominus Vobiscum)
To: NonValueAdded
That's better than my "markets up; oil down; Dingy Harry deeply soddened" gambit (as I type, the DJIA is up 50, NASDAQ up 22, S&P up 5, and oil down .22).
594
posted on
07/19/2005 11:09:01 AM PDT
by
steveegg
(Real torture is taking a ride with Sen Ted "Swimmer" Kennedy in a 1968 Oldsmobile off a short bridge)
To: SolomoninSouthDakota
I'll say it again, more slowly for you,
The "Roe is Settled Law" is one of the undignified shibboleths that conservative nominees must put up with in the name of duty.
No More, No less.
595
posted on
07/19/2005 11:09:06 AM PDT
by
hobbes1
(Hobbes1TheOmniscient® "I know everything so you dont have to...." ;)
To: Ol' Sparky
To: NathanBookman
devising new procedural rules that make it difficult to challenge abortion regulations in federal court This is exactly what's at issue in the Ayotte case coming up next term. Once the Court gets rid of the Undue Burden standard of review for facial challenges and applies the Salerno "no set of circumstances" test instead, overturning Roe will become almost irrelevant.
597
posted on
07/19/2005 11:09:26 AM PDT
by
Sandy
To: Dr.Hilarious
I would be happy with drama queens,not reactionaries before the fact. Woof! I will wait patiently like you and relax til the announcement.
598
posted on
07/19/2005 11:09:28 AM PDT
by
samantha
("Cheer up the grownups are in charge")
To: advance_copy
What does Ken Starr have to do with anything?
599
posted on
07/19/2005 11:09:45 AM PDT
by
johnb838
(Dominus Vobiscum)
To: conservativehistorian
A cursory review of her record reveals no clue regarding her position on the crucial social issues of abortion, homosexual marriage, affirmative action, or the role of religion in society. Your statement shows your naivete in these regards - that is EXACTLY the kind of candidate that is appropriate ie judicial philosophy that endears one to the Federalist Society without a paper trail for the left to latch onto.
The problem with Souter was - for those who remember - he had NEITHER + he still lived with his mother (a total kook weirdo)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 561-580, 581-600, 601-620 ... 2,661-2,664 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson