Mmm...bop?
Posted on 07/19/2005 5:06:14 PM PDT by Mo1
Edited on 07/19/2005 5:10:19 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
New thread time
You herd correctly - Roberts worked in a steel mill to pay his way in college
Read it in an earlier post.
They had all their posters, paperwork, and speaches ready to battle against a woman appointee, and Bush pulled the rug out from under them. They're still in shock! They weren't ready!!LOL!!!
Yeah, good. We'll have to elect one from SC next term
Yes...the one last week.
Well if this nomination ticks off the libs, then that makes it a bit easier to take ;-)
I guess the earrings are the one concession to femininity.
Who else opposes John Roberts?
Satan
Terrorists
The Anti-Christ
Many Democrats
Abortion Clinics
Perverts
Felons
:-)
Rush will be awesome tomorrow!
**Joe Wilson scandal?**
Good call. We need to rename it!
It doesn't matter whether I like it or not, it depends on how much of a fool you want to appear.
Justice John Roberts is 50 years old, being that it is 2005, that puts him squarely in YOUR "sixties" generation. And he doesn't fit your mold.
This is a tired argument.
Mmm...bop?
Malindasbady wrote on another thread on this subject: "Slavery was "settled law." Separate schools for Negroes was "settled law."
This response should be the rebuttal for every Far Left commentary on Roe v. Wade.
Another response might be from the First Inaugural Address of President Abraham Lincoln, a lawyer, on the danger of accepting a Supreme Court ruling in one case as binding law on all future cases.
Lincoln: "I do not forget the position assumed by some that constitutional questions are to be decided by the Supreme Court, nor do I deny that such decisions must be binding in any case upon the parties to a suit as to the object of that suit, while they are also entitled to very high respect and consideration in all parallel cases by all other departments of the Government. And while it is obviously possible that such decision may be erroneous in any given case, still the evil effect following it, being limited to that particular case, with the chance that it may be overruled and never become a precedent for other cases, can better be borne than could the evils of a different practice. At the same time, the candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions, the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.
"Nor is there in this view any assault upon the court or the judges. It is a duty from which they may not shrink to decide cases properly brought before them, and it is no fault of theirs if others seek to turn their decisions to political purposes." - Abraham Lincoln
Proud Occupants and FRequent Fliers on AF1 Rope-a-Dope1 :)
And I'm sure you spend a few minutes telling them about Grannies digs. :-} Which are quite architecturally beautiful by the way.
Checked that DUh thread.
At least half of those poster must be FReepers. They make too much sense.
No, not Canadian. Born in Buffalo, NY (my town). Maybe we'll be known for more than blizzards and the Lackawanna Six!!!!
LOL. You're not from the south, I take 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.