Posted on 08/25/2005 8:56:27 AM PDT by TBP
Senator Diane Feinstein today spoke a little about Supreme Court nominees, and what we can expect from the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings.
She also let us in on what issues Liberals in the U.S. consider when they think of the rulings that affected them, and which they cherish the most.
Feinstein told those gathered to hear her at a meeting of the L.A. County Bar Association that in her opinion the person chosen to replace Sandra Day O'Connor should be "balanced and Fair," and not come from either extreme.
She then proceeded to give a history lesson to those gathered, adding that the U.S. Constitution is "very specific in laying out how a Supreme Court nominee is chosen."
She said, rather forcefully, "Pursuant to the Advice and Consent clause, the president proposes, and the Senate disposes."
Does that mean she is predisposed to dispose of John Roberts?
She also reminded listeners that the Senate has rejected 27 of the 148 proposed judges to the Supreme Court since the founding of our nation - "almost 20 percent!" she gloated.
Feinstein then continued her history lesson, gladdening the hearts of judicial activists everywhere by extolling the virtues of the Supreme Court's rulings that have shaped "the will and the culture of this nation in ways that are everlasting and profound."
Her examples of things that shaped the will of Americans for the good? The court's defense of civil rights and privacy in the 60s and 70s ... and the court's having struck down the 1997 Religious Freedom Restoration Act, passed by Congress and designed to protect religious groups from unduly burdensome government action.
The senator is also proud of the Supreme Court's accomplishments in acting as a check on executive power. Her example? Perhaps undeserved presidential pardons? Underhanded executive orders? Attempted
The Bush administration's jailing of suspected terrorist Yasser Hamdi, and the High Court's subsequent ruling that "even an enemy combatant should be given a meaningful opportunity" to contest his detention.
Feinstein also lauded the Supreme Courts ability to protect the rights of an individual over the wishes of the government.
And what example did she give for this, you ask? Perhaps a case where someone was fighting for his home, his family, or her privacy? No.
She cited the 1990 case of Eisenberg vs. U.S. where, in a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court struck down a congressional statute that prohibited desecration of the flag of the United States as a violation of free speech.
With the criteria she seems to be employing to approve a nominee - if the above examples are her be-all end-all of Supreme Court virtuosity - it would be a wonder if anyone but Karl Marx got Sen. Feinstein's vote for the Supreme Court.
I don't think we do. Kennedy may be outrageous and Kerry may be a traitor, but neither of them has displayed the amount of mind-numbing ignorance I've seen so often from the CA gang.
Certainly Bill Clinton tried to balance the court by nominating Ginsberg. </sarcasm
He looks like a "Claymation" character in that pic. LOL
Well, if it's mind-numbing ignorance that you want, how about Washington State? Osama-mama Murray vs. Box-O-Rox and Cantwell vs. DiFi?
Ralph Neas is the wackiest looking person in public life. The "doll-hair" that resulted from a hair plug job gone terribly wrong is so distracting to me I can't concentrate on what he's saying (maybe that's a good thing). He makes Joe Biden's nest look natural.
Have you never seen Rep. Henry Waxman?
In other breaking news, the sun rose again this morning...
They WILL look like they are smearing a good man and pandering for votes.
They are helpless on Roberts. He is cool as a cucumber, he is good as good, and will make the Democrats look like fools to the discerning eyes of American citizens.
How about Dennis Kucinich or Jim Traficant? Box-O-Rox doesn't look too normal, either.
If we get a single Dim vote fro Roberts I'll keel over in shock.
“These turds ain't got the guts to go nuclear... lets call their bluff!”
I expect Reid (and Hillary) will make this a party loyalty vote, with all sorts of dire reprisals agaianst any Dim who breaks ranks over Roberts. They'll have the full support and backing of MoveOn and the other leftist groups in making the "traitors'" lives miserable.
My fear is that the Dims won't even need to filibuster, that they'll be able to count on enough RINOs jumping the GOP ship to defeat the Roberts nomination on an up-an-down floor vote. Snowe and Specter are already slipping away, and that means they'll take Collins and Chafee with them for certain. And that leaves lots of room for mischief for the likes of Voinovich and Hagel. The Rats then get to have their cake and eat it too - they shoot down Roberts and keep the filibuster for another day.
I don't know if you ever noticed this, but... It appears to others (who I have talked to) and myself, that liberals have a distinctly stupid look about them. I can usually pick liberals out of a crowd with uncanny accuracy to the amazement of friends.
Liberals do have a certain personae that is physically manifest. We need to come up with a term for it (sarcasm on - - a-hole-us-gigantis??? - - /sarcasm off).
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.