| 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]
I think there are posters who want to agitate the forum and your reasoned explanation is a good counter to them.
Also possible that W was thinking long and smart when he was first elected. He figured he'd get to make at least one SC nominee..so he planted Clement early in the appeals system..she was one of his first nominees, remember..and she's been , shall we say "stealthy" in her written track record..
Really?
Dan
(PS -- yes, we're bad)
An Alabama Catholic?
Then I don't think conservatives have a thing to worry about.
Take it from me, the product of 12 years Catholic education--in Alabama!, the nuns will have made sure she's well grounded in tradional, conservative philosophy.
(Psst. Don't forget Clarence Thomas' early education was with Southern nuns, too)
You cannot fight a battle before the battle starts. You are running the race before the starting pistol has gone off. While the others in the race are relaxing and resting before the race you are running like hell beside the track. Boy the Dems love your type when the real fight begins,you are too pooped to pop,both physically and emotionally.
I'd respond if you weren't a raving fool, showed any ability to understand the topic, or were at least capable of intelligent, cordial discussion. You fail across the board. I'll look forward to your "I'll never vote Republican again!" posts, which I am sure you will put up by the dozens tonight. Enjoy yourself, now.
I would be SO thrilled if it were to be Estrada, for both his excellence and the agony he and W were forced to endure at the hands of the Philistines; but I really think Laura's comment, seemingly nonchalant as it was, was not said innocently and has substance ... I think it will be a woman.
It could be that Bush wants to appoint another O'Connor and thinks that given it will be months until Clement is involved in a ruling that he can get away with appoint an stealth Gonzales.
One of the things that really pisses me off here is that these GOP presidents don't get it when it comes to SC appointees...Clinton got it. This is central to the presidency itself! It is almost the only thing that matters.
Look, what do you think of when you think of the Bush 41 admin. two things: a) first Gulf War and b) Souter (fail) and Thomas (A+).
What do you think of when you think of the Second Bush Admin: a) Second Gulf War....b) is about to be announced today. Why can't they see the significance of this? Why not deliver???
Exactly. And judges that are going to begin nibbling away at Roe are a step in the right direction.
Babs Boxer in hysterical, over emotional, over the top, mode yet again. Could someone please give that woman some estrogen - she needs her hormone levels adjusted.
"She (Edith Clement) has been strongly supported by Mary Landrieu, who is on Emily's list."
Please. Do you think that there is anyone you disagree with that has supported President Bush? How about Arlen Specter? Does that disqualify the President for you? Talk about guilt by association. Besides, I suspect that Ms. Clement probably needed the support of at least one of her home state senators, who were both dems, to be put on the federal bench.
"Edith Clement has come out and said she is in favor of privacy and claims that is in the Constitution. Privacy is a nice way of saying abortion should be legal because it is a private matter."
Well, we're all in favor of privacy and I hope she does to. What she actually said was that she recognizes that the Supreme Court has defined a right to privacy. As a lower court judge she should say that because it's true. By the way, I believe there is a right to privacy, which is part of the ninth amendment. I just don't believe it should apply to abortion. There is no basis to believe that Judge Clement would not vote to return to a more original understanding on this issue, i.e. vote to restrict or even overturn Roe
I heard that, too, but I approach these things by looking at primary sources, not "X likes her, and X is connected to Y" etc. But I am still researching, so who knows what I will discover along the way. So far, I like her.
Please refrain from emotionalism. I have no interest in it.
I didn't state she a moderate. I did state she was not a Liberal in my assessment based on what I have read because some people are claiming she is. There is no basis for that characterization.
I stated she appears to be a solid Jurist with a record that does not indicate activism. This points to an originalist. There is nothing to suggest she makes law on the bench.
The question, I'll repeat again, is how she feels about settled law as a proposed member of the Supreme Court. This we do not have answer to.
Kennedy and Kerry are only Catholics because they think that we Catholics are still clannish, they are out of step on this. I am a Catholic, I supported Bush. I am pulling for Allen. Neither are Catholics, we are no longer blind to these guys, but they think that Catholics are stupid and will just vote for them because they are Catholic, it may play in Boston, but not here in Indiana.
That really is the question isn't it.
About a hundred years ago GK Chesterton had the following definition for Liberals and Conservatives:
Liberals: "Make new mistakes"
Conservatives: "Preserve old mistakes"
There is a ring of truth to that.
I'll pass it on for sure! Let's watch them squirm.
Shall I put a thread up so the DUmmies will be sure to see it? :-)
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.