Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Revealed: Senate Democrat Supreme Court Nominee Talking Points
Senate Democrat Policy Committee | Tuesday, July 20, 2005 | Some Rat Hack

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.


TOPICS: Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 109th; scotus; talkingpoints
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-31 next last
Here's your handy guide for the Democrats' response after the announcement of President Bush's Supreme Court nominee this evening. Break out your Freeper decoder rings to decipher the spin.

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.

1 posted on 07/19/2005 4:28:25 PM PDT by kristinn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: kristinn

Hmmm. No mention of strict adherence to the Constitution..


2 posted on 07/19/2005 4:31:39 PM PDT by cardinal4 (Senate Dems- striving for a level of petulance and immaturity seen only in pre schools..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kristinn
Protect the individual rights and freedoms of Americans

Like, say, the right to not have your home seized and handed to a company that made large campaign contributions?

3 posted on 07/19/2005 4:32:43 PM PDT by ThinkDifferent (These pretzels are making me thirsty)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ThinkDifferent

I thought it took "a village," not individuals...


4 posted on 07/19/2005 4:35:13 PM PDT by Eric in the Ozarks (Scratch a Liberal. Uncover a Fascist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: kristinn
The standards for a nominee are clear. A nominee must:
+ Protect the individual rights and freedoms of Americans,

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.

5 posted on 07/19/2005 4:36:25 PM PDT by Echo Talon (http://echotalon.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cardinal4

You're right. No mention of a judge's duty with respect to the Constitution at all.


6 posted on 07/19/2005 4:38:04 PM PDT by kristinn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: kristinn

Must be a fraud, nowhere do I read the word "MAINSTREAM" ..


7 posted on 07/19/2005 4:38:07 PM PDT by 11th_VA (Sic Semper Tyrannis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cardinal4

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.


8 posted on 07/19/2005 4:39:25 PM PDT by EagleUSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: 11th_VA

Here's the dem talking points:

http://rightalk.net/mainstream.asx


9 posted on 07/19/2005 4:43:01 PM PDT by agitator (...And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: kristinn

May the good Lord bless and empower the nominee as he/she endures the confirmation process.


10 posted on 07/19/2005 4:50:03 PM PDT by mombonn (¡Viva Bush/Cheney!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kristinn

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.


11 posted on 07/19/2005 4:51:07 PM PDT by joem15
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mombonn

Yep....wouldn't want to have to go through the grueling near future he has to face.


12 posted on 07/19/2005 4:54:26 PM PDT by anniegetyourgun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: ThinkDifferent

"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


13 posted on 07/19/2005 5:55:21 PM PDT by traviskicks (http://www.neoperspectives.com/janicerogersbrown.htm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: mombonn

Amen. This is going to be a donneybrook.


14 posted on 07/19/2005 6:13:21 PM PDT by kristinn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: All

Leahy just cribbed the talking points with his statement.


15 posted on 07/19/2005 6:14:50 PM PDT by kristinn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: kristinn

Schumer warning Roberts that he will be expected to answer Schumer's questions.


16 posted on 07/19/2005 6:16:23 PM PDT by kristinn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

Comment #17 Removed by Moderator

To: kristinn

Schumer..........He must answer my questions.


18 posted on 07/19/2005 6:19:42 PM PDT by stocksthatgoup (http://www.busateripens.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: stocksthatgoup

Schumer's saying he wants to rummage through the private files of Hogan and Hartson (Roberts old firm). Incredible!


19 posted on 07/19/2005 6:21:52 PM PDT by kristinn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: kristinn
No fewer than three mentions of "must not rush to judgment." Translated, that means as protracted and nasty a battle as the Dems can contrive, and they'll pose as saviours of the country the entire time.

And the Republicans will probably pick up a few Senate seats as a result. Play ball!

20 posted on 07/19/2005 6:24:42 PM PDT by Billthedrill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-31 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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson