Posted on 07/21/2005 7:06:36 AM PDT by Theodore R.
Farah almost had one of the first serious internet based media outlets at WND. But he's an idiot, and I don't read his work or peruse WND because he's still there.
earth, nut
John Daly with a wood
what does the last signify?
world
nut (Net)
Daly (Daily)
:)
Despite the fact that all they are saying is: "What do we really know about this guy?"
Is just asking that one question such an onerous thing to do?
Yep. WND was on the cutting edge of real Internet media back in the late 90s. They were once ranked #4 on the Internet in hits, if I'm not mistaken.
whew... thanks for clearing that up. :-D
Damn....excellent Mike....very good.
It's still early...
ROFLMAO!
heheh
its ok...The John Daly pic is a bit of a stretch, but I couldnt find anything else....
about 2 hours ago I was probably feeling the same way. I hadn't yet had my morning caffiene... :)
Yeah, when he said democracy ... in the back of my head red flags were going up also. I figured I was the only one in America that caught that.
I would feel ALOT better about this guy had he said republic.
pl. de·moc·ra·cies
Government by the people, exercised either directly ***or through elected representatives.***
A political or social unit that has such a government.
The common people, considered as the primary source of political power.
Majority rule.
Guess it depends on how anal one wants to get?
"I'm guessing the gist of it is that John Roberts"
Probably flew planes into Mena AK and covered up Foster's death too.
Some people just like to split hairs. Like I said earlier in this thread, the word "Democracy" has evolved to mean any form of representative government.
His views mean diddley-squat. You're thinking like a liberal -- wanting a judge to be an activist, just as long as he's activist your way. The only two questions that really matter are 1) does the judge follow the law and the Constitution? and 2) what is the judge's opinions with regard to stare decisis?
The first question is by far the most important -- if a judge strictly follows the law and the Constitution, then everything else will sort itself out. A judge who will uphold the law, even when it disagrees with his personal opinions, is definately the sort that belongs on the USSC. As far as stare decisis goes, this is where you get the differences between the Scalia and Thomas schools of thought... should the USSC reconsider its own decisions? On the one side, it is easy to point to bad decisions like the recent Kelo case as an example of why stare decisis shouldn't be so important; on the flip-side, a USSC that holds little or no respect for previous decisions makes for a less stable legal system, because there's an air of "at whim" out there. In my opinion, some form of balance is needed on this point -- respect precedent, but reserve the option to revisit controverisal cases, especially 5-4 decisions.
Back to Roberts... his history shows that he's good on #1 -- he's not an activist, he follows the law (look at the infamous "french fry" case for an excellent example). I haven't seen or heard anything with regards to #2.
Once Novak and Buchannan start b**tching, I'll know for certain he's the right guy for the job.
Mr. Farah is indeed splitting hairs. John Roberts knows that we have a Republic, not a democracy. The democracy usage is just common terminology and those who know American history recognize the difference or distinction within the context of such usage. I am reminded again that the rabid socialist left who are predictable enemies of this President are less a threat to good people taking public office than are the hair splitting know it alls on the right. John Roberts is an excellent candidate for SCJ and should receive all of the support conservatives can muster.
So would I.
I'm not aware of "hundreds" of Supreme Court decisions being reversed by a court of appeals. Or even one. Maybe Farah can give a few examples in his next column....
For a judge being consider for a seat on a federal appellate court, Roe is settled law. Any federal appellate judicial candidate who couldn't follow Roe as precedent shouldn't be approved by the Senate. You don't pick and choose which precedents to follow. As a lower court, you are bound by the decisions of higher courts. That's first year law student stuff.
That is a completely different question from whether that same judge would or should consider Roe as binding precedent on the Supreme Court, because unlike an appellate court, the Supreme Court has the power to reverse Roe.
Conservatives like Farah tick me off because they're not really judicial conservatives at all. They're activist conservatives who think judges should do the "right thing" regardless of what the law is. All he cares about is the result -- does Roe stand, or not? Whether its judicially proper for an appellate judge to make that decision apparently doesn't figure into his thinking.
Roberts gave the exact answer to that question he should have given.
maybe I am splitting hairs... but i'm just nervous. This guy could be on the bench for 30-40 years.... We can't afford another pro death supreme court justice if we want to see Roe v Wade overturned in our lifetime.
If he had said "republic" instead of "democracy".... I would have seen that as code for "it's ok guys, i'm on your side, don't worry" to us.
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.