Posted on 07/22/2005 12:06:17 AM PDT by goldstategop
The more I hear Dems saying he's to extreme.... the more I like the nomination. Of course they could know that and be just saying that to make me like the nominee. :)
I am very sorry,but who cares what Bill Press thinks?
It must have been included in the most recent talking points.
Bill press and mega barf are redundant
This french fry case is a beautiful example of the difference between a "strict constructionist" and an "activist judge".
The liberals who disagree with Roberts' position claim that he should have shown compassion for the "child", regardless of the law.
Roberts' position is that the law is the law. If the people don't like the law, make your legislatures change the law. By the way, the city did change the law.
Also, Press got his "facts" wrong. The lower court judge did not side with the mother. The lower court sided with the city. Roberts and two other appeals court judges agreed with the lower court in a unanimous decision.
I have notices that a lot of things are beyond you.
Republicans have always played by the rules. For one hundred sixty years presidents appointed and Senates confimred. The Senate didn't even have the nominees testify before the judiciary committee until 1955. Prior to that nominees just had an up or down vote.
Appointments were never challenged on ideology. It was that way for nearly 180 years. Then the Democrats unilaterally changed the rules.
The Republicans have refused to stoop to the Demcorats level on nominees, obstructionism, or name calling. In the last 20 years Republicans have refused to use the mean spirited Democratic tactics. And what has been the result? The Republicans now have total control of the House, they have the majority in the Senate, they control a majority of state goverments and they have the presidency. And President Bush is in the process of taking control of the judiciary for the right...including the Supreme Court.
During the same period those Democrats you so admire have gone from the majority party controlling all levels of government to the minority party losing elections at an increasing rate at every level of government.
The most telling thing about you Huck is you are an ardent admirer of losers. Why do I get the impression that you are a loser too?
Wonder if this dipstip realizes the solicitor general argues the Presidents views not his own?
Ah, yes. Setting up the "extraordinary circumstance" cover for the 14 Dopey Dwarves...
I don't believe these numbers but according to Press, nearly ONE THIRD of the country are right wing extremists...
Says more about Press than it does about America, doesn't it?
Coming from Chairman Bill, I consider this a glowing endorsement.
That act is bogus just on the spotted owl issue alone. It's been protected to the extent that I have to sweep and shovel gobs of them off of my porch every morning just to get out of my house in the morning! And I live in the middle of a city.
Press is as bad as Boxer and her ilk that want the oil off of the coast of California to continue to ooze into the ocean floor instead of drilling it out to relieve the pressure.
OK, average spud, name the rule. How about you link to the rule? What is the rule called?
For one hundred sixty years presidents appointed and Senates confimred.
So you advocate a blank check? Look at what wonders it's done so far! The SCOTUS has been a smashing success! By all means, let's keep going the way we're going!
I can't wait to see that you referred to. You know, the one the democrats are breaking?
Doesn't it, though? To me, we should be rejecting any non-originalist judge.
This rule you mentioned? The one the GOP is following and the Dems are "unilaterally" breaking? Is it in the Constitution? I see where it says with the advice and consent of the Senate, but I don't see any rules or criteria specified, do you? I see where it says the Senate will set its own rules. So where is this rule? It must be in there somewhere.
You or I might not like one, but the senate has no right to reject one if a president chose him or her. Look at Ginsberg and Breyer. It's not about whether you or I like their philosophy; it's about the president, winning an election, exercising his choice, which is his to make as the winner of the election.
What's the deal with the new catch phrase 'frog marching'?
It dates from the late 1800s, but since Joe Wilson said it, now it's the phrase of the day among the liberal elite!
You would think they would be more considerate than to slander their French buddies!
Really? Looking at the Article 2, Section 2, Clause 2 it reads
...by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.They should be looking at these judges a little harder instead of just rubber stamping anything the President sends up. Consent, not only advise. God knows what the past decades of that has gotten us for the most part. If the supposed conservative party in Congress had been on the ball a little more over the past nominations and not lockstep partisans, perhaps things may have been a bit different.
Although I don't expect the hacks to fall out of step with the President and the Democrats see something they like about this guy, so it should be a relatively easy approval process. Unfortunately
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.