Posted on 07/28/2005 7:16:11 PM PDT by CHARLITE
"But if Roberts votes against Roe, Hillary will have a very hard time explaining her support for him, especially if Sens. John Kerry (Mass.), Evan Bayh (Ind.) and Joe Biden (Del.) — her potential Democratic rivals in 2008 — vote against his confirmation."
As if any of those 3 have a chance against Hillary and the $100 million warchest that she will likely bring to the Iowa caucuses.
This sort of talk just benefits Hillary by creating the illusion of a horserace rather than a corronation.
I don't think Hillary will make it out of the Democrat debates. She's terrible at thinking on her feet.
Strategery.
"I don't think Hillary will make it out of the Democrat debates. She's terrible at thinking on her feet."
She's going to be debating John Kerry... maybe Mark Warner or Evan Bayh. I suspect that she'll get the better of her opponents.
Now, Hillary and Ann Coulter.. that's a different story, and a debate that I would love to see!
"I can't beleive I'm losing to this idiot!"
Oh, horsehocky. Hillary has the NOW and NARAL endorsement locked up. Hell, a Clinton could be getting bl*wjobs in the Oval Office from interns - and those idiots will still worship them.
Run Hillary Run!
Oh yes they can. Morris is pipe dreaming. Democrats will simply say, all previous votes are off when someone is nominated for Supreme Court, or they'll claim they've found new documents that give them pause. Or, The Supreme Court is a different ball of wax. And anyway, democrats have never been bound by logic or honor. To them, "truth changes".
Politicians and judges won't, but I wish (I could hear) a commentator ask why anyone needs to respect precedents that didn't respect other precedents.
Very true, Hitlary could have sex with a man and not upset the women of naral.
Hitlary is "their man" and they know it. There is NOTHING she can do to upset them.
Leave it to Morris:
**Bush has made the Democrats impotent.**
LOL!
She's NOT smart!!! Repeat: She's NOT smart. It's beginning to show now.
They did that all by themselves...
Kerry was the "best" they could do?
Hillary vs. Rice
That's simply not true.
The ideal situation would be that every court in the land would understand correctly what is the law of the land and apply it properly, taking into account the Constitutional limits on the power of Congress.
In reality, the system is imperfect. Since lower courts are subject to appeal, it is fruitless for them to rule in any way other than in accordance with precedent. "Settled law" is simply that law which the appeals courts recognize.
The Supreme Court, however, is not subject to appeals. Short of impeachment, Supreme Court Justices are free to follow precedent or not, as their understanding of the Constitution dictates. This is a practical distinction, not a legal one, since the lower court judges follow the same oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution.
The lack of a Senate filibuster in the appointment of a lower court appointee may simply reflect political reality and not a confirmation of suitability of a candidate to be a Supreme Court Justice. There is a very different expectation for those who hold office in the highest court of the land. Democrats and Republicans would be mistaken not to recognize this practical distinction.
Morris is right about that.
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.