Bush's High Court Pick Earns High Praise (from Christian Conservatives)

Focus on the Family ^ | July 20, 2005 | Pete Winn

[billbears]

He is pro-States Rights on the Roe V Wade issue

Where do you see that? I haven't seen a statement concerning his stance on states rights

"It is imperative that the next Supreme Court justice help restore the Constitutional balance of power between the branches of government and leave legislating to Congress and the states," said Coburn.

No Senator it is imperative that the next Supreme Court justice help restore the Constitutional balance of power between the states and the national government through his decisions. Once this is done, what the branches of the national government do between themselves will become inconsequential

[Alberta's Child]

Ann Coulter should read this.

LOL.

[Jaysun]

I am not a social conservative but it's very good for the country that those who elected Bush feel they got what they paid for. Hopefully, everyone will see this as proof that our system works, that elections matter and do reflect the will of the majority.

Hats off to you Larry.

I'm a conservative but I'd like to see the courts change in a way that probably differs from most. In pursuit of fairness at any cost, we're creating a society that's increasingly paralyzed by legal fear. Viewing every social choice through the narrow perspective of "individual rights" is a utopian fantasy that has produced a society scared of its shadows and mired in legal bickering.

Letting individuals use the power of the courts against others' free choices is a funny way to run a free society. That's what legislatures are for. Let us hope that this gentleman is a "strict constructionist".

[kpp_kpp]

i agree. why would someone of his intelligence and knowledge refer to our government as a constitutional democracy and not a constitutional republic?

call me a pessimist but there is something fishy about this whole thing.

everyone is going on about his "clean" record, maybe it is a bit too clean...

i'll hold off going off the deep end for this guy until after a few rulings, but by then it is too late of course.

hopefully it is just my pessimistic side coming out and i will be proven completely off base. his wife's well established pro-life stance does provide me with a bit of assurance on that single issue.

[Derk Bentley]

Judging by the uproar over Bush appointing the UN rep over the heads of lowly Senate, Bush is 139 behind. Clinton and other POTUS did not hesitate to appoint good people. Of course, in BC's case "Good" meant liberal, possibly even a liberal buying a job.
If Bush cannot be blocked from appointing, he should appoint until he's tired then do a few more days of appointing. The Dims are gonna hate him for breathing anyway so he might as well kick something. Bush should plow the Democrats fields DEEP, HARD, AND VERY OFTEN. Especially when appointing...they hate decent people.
Check out http://theworldtradecenter.blogspot.com/2005/08/placed-news-deep-within-as-on-page-37.html

[COEXERJ145]

Why would he use those terms??

Because in the modern lexicon, Democracy and Republic have become interchangeable.