Posted on 07/19/2005 4:28:24 PM PDT by kristinn
Talking Points on the Nomination Process
The standards for a nominee are clear. A nominee must:
+ Protect the individual rights and freedoms of Americans,
+ Judge cases fairly, with an open mind, and without a political agenda,
+ Protect all Americans, and not side with powerful special interests, and
+ Meet the highest ethical standards and be free of conflicts of interest.
Justices must be committed to the independence of the Court, not an ideological agenda.
The next Supreme Court Justice will make decisions affecting the lives of all Americans. It is important that the decision whether to confirm a nominee be made with the best information possible.
We must not rush to judgment. The Judiciary Committee must be allowed to do its work, and that includes an in-depth review of the nominee and hearings to allow for questions and answers.
Justices are appointed for a lifetime. There is a process in place to evaluate a nominee's credentials and qualifications. That process must be allowed to occur.
As recent examples, such as the nomination of Bernard Kerik, have shown, it is important that we not rush to a decision before fully examining the facts.
It is the Senate's Constitutional duty to carefully consider nominees. Many justices serve for ten, twenty or more years and will have an enormous impact on the laws of our country. For a nomination decision, it is important to do it right, not to do it quickly.
Hearings are central to the nomination process. It is important not to prejudge a nominee before all the facts are in.
If it weren't a work night, I'd suggest a party game marking each time one of the talking points is referenced. Suit yourself.
Hmmm. No mention of strict adherence to the Constitution..
Like, say, the right to not have your home seized and handed to a company that made large campaign contributions?
I thought it took "a village," not individuals...
Maybe they didn't get the memo that their justices rules against private property by allowing eminent domain to come in and snatch it up.
You're right. No mention of a judge's duty with respect to the Constitution at all.
Must be a fraud, nowhere do I read the word "MAINSTREAM" ..
Hmmm. No mention of strict adherence to the Constitution..
----
Yes, jumped right out, didn't it?
That is what I would expect from the anti-American, socialist Dems. For them, the Constitution is a real obstacle to their oppressive agenda.
Here's the dem talking points:
http://rightalk.net/mainstream.asx
May the good Lord bless and empower the nominee as he/she endures the confirmation process.
Why couldn't these standards have been applied to Edward (Ted) Kennedy in 1969. From Wikipedia:
During a party on Chappaquiddick Island on July 18, 1969, Senator Kennedy drove his 1967 Oldsmobile Delmont 88 off Dike Bridge (also spelled Dyke Bridge), a wooden bridge that is angled obliquely to an unlit road onto which he claimed to have made a wrong turn. The car plunged into tide-swept Poucha Pond (at that location a channel) and landed upside down under the water. There is speculation about whether Mary Jo Kopechne drowned or suffocated.
No justice , no peace Ted Kennedy.
Yep....wouldn't want to have to go through the grueling near future he has to face.
"Protect the individual rights and freedoms of Americans"
---
I know someone who would do this, but not the way the libs want...
Something new, called economic rights, began to supplant the old property rights. This change, which occurred with remarkably little fanfare, was staggeringly significant. With the advent of "economic rights," the original meaning of rights was effectively destroyed. These new "rights" imposed obligations, not limits, on the state. It thus became government's job not to protect property but, rather, to regulate and redistribute it. And, the epic proportions of the disaster which has befallen millions of people during the ensuing decades has not altered our fervent commitment to statism.
- CA Justice Janice Rogers Brown
(FROM):
http://www.neoperspectives.com/janicerogersbrown.htm
Amen. This is going to be a donneybrook.
Leahy just cribbed the talking points with his statement.
Schumer warning Roberts that he will be expected to answer Schumer's questions.
Schumer..........He must answer my questions.
Schumer's saying he wants to rummage through the private files of Hogan and Hartson (Roberts old firm). Incredible!
And the Republicans will probably pick up a few Senate seats as a result. Play ball!
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.