Skip to comments.
John Roberts Too Extreme For The U.S Supreme Court (Bill Press MEGA-BARF Alert)
Worldnetdaily.com ^
| 07/22/05
| Bill Press
Posted on 07/22/2005 12:06:17 AM PDT by goldstategop
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-68 last
To: Dr.Hilarious
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. Says who? Where does it say the Senate has no right to reject a nominee? Show me that one.
61
posted on
07/22/2005 10:19:21 AM PDT
by
Huck
(Whatever.)
To: Common Tator
Did you find that rule you were talking about?
62
posted on
07/22/2005 1:42:19 PM PDT
by
Huck
(Whatever.)
To: Huck
Says who? Where does it say the Senate has no right to reject a nominee? Show me that one.Show me where I said the Senate has no right to reject a nominee.
63
posted on
07/23/2005 10:26:16 AM PDT
by
Dr.Hilarious
("My wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity."-Joe W)
To: billbears
You took my comment out of context to make it seem like something it's not. I was responding to a question about rejecting a non-originalist. I should have reworded that to exclude "no right" and merely said it was my preference, but I was not saying the senate has no right to reject a nominee; they have the right to reject anyone for any reason.
64
posted on
07/23/2005 10:29:14 AM PDT
by
Dr.Hilarious
("My wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity."-Joe W)
To: Dr.Hilarious
You said "the senate has no right to reject one if a president chose him or her."
65
posted on
07/23/2005 11:13:11 AM PDT
by
Huck
("John Roberts will almost certainly pull the Supreme Court to the right."-Rich Lowry)
To: Huck
You said "the senate has no right to reject one if a president chose him or her."Please see post #58; I was refering to the selection of non-originalist nominees NOT "a nominee". Granted I should have reworded that, but what I was trying to say was that being a "non-originalist" was not in itself grounds for rejection, as I saw it. I never, ever said the senate had no right to reject nominees, even in the incorrectly worded answer.
66
posted on
07/23/2005 11:21:47 AM PDT
by
Dr.Hilarious
("My wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity."-Joe W)
To: Dr.Hilarious
I saw that post after posting my response. I think we're all clear now :-P
67
posted on
07/23/2005 12:01:32 PM PDT
by
Huck
("John Roberts will almost certainly pull the Supreme Court to the right."-Rich Lowry)
To: Huck
Yes, my fingers just have to learn that just because I believe it that doesn't mean it's the rule of law!
68
posted on
07/23/2005 12:03:36 PM PDT
by
Dr.Hilarious
("My wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity."-Joe W)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-68 last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson