To: Dead Corpse
I think it is well-known he is not going to be a Thomas or Scalia, but will be a more moderate conservative like Rehnquist. But, he will be conservative and will give us more victories.
20 posted on
07/20/2005 7:25:57 AM PDT by
rwfromkansas
(http://www.xanga.com/home.aspx?user=rwfromkansas)
To: rwfromkansas
That is just it, we don't NEED another "moderate". I hate that term. A "moderate" is just a euphemism for a flip-flopper with no firm basis for their decisions. We've had plenty of that going on with O'Connor, we don't need more.
Judge Roberts seems a bit better grounded then that. I'm just trying to discover how far that goes before breaking out the champaign.
27 posted on
07/20/2005 7:36:05 AM PDT by
Dead Corpse
(Never underestimate the will of the downtrodden to lie flatter.)
To: rwfromkansas
he is not going to be a Thomas or Scalia, but will be a more moderate conservative like Rehnquist. But, he will be conservative and will give us more victories. Since the median justice of SCOTUS (all too often, in recent years, O'Connor) prevails, it is a distant dream to have the difference between Rehnquist and Scalia become a significant factor in jurisprudence. Replacing O'Connor with Roberts will, presumably, make Kennedy and Souter the pivotal votes; if one of them votes with Scalia/Thomas then surely Rehnquist and Roberts will be on board as well.
31 posted on
07/20/2005 7:44:05 AM PDT by
conservatism_IS_compassion
(The idea around which liberalism coheres is that NOTHING actually matters but PR.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson