Posted on 07/21/2005 12:02:40 AM PDT by RWR8189
Washington - Faced with a growing scandal surrounding the involvement of Deputy White House chief of Staff Karl Rove and Vice President Cheney's Chief of Staff Lewis Libby in the leaking the identity of a covert CIA operative, President Bush announced his nomination of John Roberts to the Supreme Court late this evening. Democratic National Chairman Howard Dean today issued the following statement on the nomination:
"It is disappointing that when President Bush had the chance to bring the country together, he instead turned to a nominee who may have impressive legal credentials, but also has sharp partisan credentials that cannot be ignored.
"Democrats take very seriously the responsibility to protect the individual rights of all Americans and are committed to ensuring that ideological judicial activists are not appointed to the Supreme Court. The Senate Judiciary Committee will now have the opportunity to see if Judge Roberts can put his partisanship aside, and live up to a Supreme Court Justice's duty to uphold the rights and freedoms of every American and the promise of equal justice for all."
It's nice to know that the new standard is that Supreme Court nominees are now presumed to be partisan, and they need to demonstrate their ability to disregard partisanship in order to be acceptable as justices. I'd just like to know when this became the standard for judicial acceptability? And who decided the new standards?
Is he so incredibly addle that he has the nerve to accuse another person of being overtly Partisan?
Did Mr. Scream think that Bush was going to nominate a Democrat?
I don't know where the Democrat biggies had Dean hiding these past couple of weeks, but it muat be a good spot 'cause it worked!
Now, if they'd just send him back there....
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
"judicial activists are not appointed to the Supreme Court"
How can the Dems say this with a straight face?
"Democrats take very seriously the responsibility to protect the individual rights of all Americans and are committed to ensuring that ideological judicial activists are not appointed to the Supreme Court."
Wow, just wow.
They really think saying the opposite of the truth can be believed?
It was the liberals who affirmed the "Kelo" ruling that trampled on property rights.
They really think Ginzberg and the Clinton/Gore Judges who go around stirking 'under God' from the pledge are *not* ideological judicial activists???
The world is turned upside-down.
You know, you could start a whole new thread with just that statement, encouraging all freepers to swamp Dean and the DNC with emails.
Send your email here:
http://www.democrats.org/page/s/contact
and/or here:
http://www.dnc.org/page/s/contact
When liberals say, "individual rights", it doesn't mean anything but ABORTION.
Why can't Bush nominate someone non-partisan like the chief counsel for the ACLU?
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.