Posted on 07/21/2005 10:14:19 AM PDT by cogitator
Excerpts (of course):
"Roberts was, in short, the shrewdest choice President Bush could have made to fill retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's Supreme Court seat. Roberts could move the court well to the right yet grin his way through the confirmation process. His advertising slogan might be: Staunchly on the Right. But With No Hard Edges."
"If you doubt this, consider that no one disputes Justice Antonin Scalia's intelligence or sense of humor. Many of us would welcome the chance to have Scalia as a professor. But outside the ranks of the right wing, few Americans want their country defined consistently by Scalia's choices. In shifting the balance on the court, Roberts could give Scalia the power to impose his worldview."
"But a good personality and a public record that, in Neas's phrase, is "very sparse" do not mean that Roberts belongs on a closely divided court. The Bush administration will be trying to create a nice-guy stampede to Roberts among moderate Democrats and Republicans. The stampede should be resisted until everyone knows more about where Roberts stands. Conservatives were surprised at how liberal Justice Souter turned out to be. There will be no excuse for discovering too late that Roberts is every bit as conservative as his supporters think he is."
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Memo to E.J. -- the right wing elected George W. Bush, and that means we want Scalia's worldview imposed on everybody. Majority wins and majority rules!
"...Roberts could give Scalia the power to impose his worldview"
As if Souter, Kennedy, Ginsberg, and Stevens haven't been doing that for the past decade thanks to O'Connor.
"But outside the ranks of the right wing, few Americans want their country defined consistently by Scalia's choices"
Fewer want it defined by you and your liberal MSM ilk!
Memo to E.J. -- the right wing elected George W. Bush, and that means we want Scalia's worldview imposed on everybody.
Personally, I'd prefer Clarence Thomas's worldview. Thanks.
Majority wins and majority rules!
Actually, no. We do have rights that trump even majority rules.
E.J. needs to change his Depends.............
Why is that whenever these left-wingers in the press bring up all the rights we're constantly in danger of losing, they never seem to mention property rights? Do any of them actually own homes, or all they all renters?
Property rights have been mentioned by the lefties with regards to Roberts and his potential SCOTUS impact.
"But outside the ranks of the right wing, few Americans want their country defined consistently by Scalia's choices."
As anyone who's read any of his opinions on the Court knows, Justice Scalia has only one choice: obey the Constitution wherever it leads. Dionne, and his newspaper, and his dinner party set, and his brain dead political party, do not want "their country" defined by the Constitution.
When you think about the house-taking case from Connecticut, average Americans realizes that we DO want the country governed by the Constitution. And that is EXACTLY why Dionne's "they" are now in the minority, and why we must continue to beat them like a rented mule, until they wise up, or die of old age, whichever comes first.
Did I miss anything?
Congressman Billybob
Excellent post, sir!
Average people are able to understand the implications of the Kelo case, and more and more of them are scoffing at the nonsense these liberal clowns spew.
Nothing new here. Just some ramblings from another 'rat who was educated beyond his intelligence.
Blessings, Bobo
I wonder how many people in this country have considered or thought about what this country would be like had the Supreme Court -- throughout its entire history -- hewn to strict interpretation of the Constitution. It'd sure be different than what we see now, I'm sure.
It'd be an interesting exercise in alternate history to identify 10 or 20 salient 5-4 decisions, "reverse" them, and then extrapolate the changes in history that would follow. Not something I could do, but a political scientist/historian??
The other night I saw Lawrence Tribe wetting himself on television because Roberts would INCREASE property rights
Then the author described the subsequent alternative history. I vaguely remember that North and South finally reunited.
Maybe that's one reason 48.2% of them voted for Kerry. But 50.7% of them voted for Bush, and the winner governs the country.
Sounds good, prpoperty rights are so important!
There are tons of alternate history stories where the Civil War came out differently. If you're interested, look at Harry Turtledove's "American War" series. In it, the Confederacy wins, Lincoln and the Republicans are disgraced, a second war is fought in the 1880s which the South also wins with British help. The parties in the US are the Democrats and the Socialists, with the administrative capital in Philadelphia. When WWI rolls around, the Confederates side with the Brits and the Union sides with the Kaiser. The Union and Germany win. And more...
Personally, I'd prefer Clarence Thomas's worldview. Thanks.
Majority wins and majority rules!
Actually, no. We do have rights that trump even majority rules.
That's a BIG +1. I was personally hoping for Janice Rogers Brown, as she seems to be Clarence Thomas with, uh ... err, make that a female Clarence Thomas.
It is especially heartwarming to see a fellow libertarian-oriented Jew, as so many of our co-religionists have joined the Dark Side (Feinstein, Schumer, et al are only the pond scum that have floated to the top of that cesspool).
Careful E.J., your letting it slip. Leftism is all about granting the government more power isn't 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.