Posted on 09/21/2005 4:54:29 PM PDT by goldstategop
Replacing the Chief Justice, with a sitting member of SCOTUS is so rare, as to be almost a never done, kind of thing. Look it up.
Actually Dingy Harry did: he ridiculous criticized Judge Roberts for using the term 'amigo'. Now if that doesn't prove Judge Roberts is a 'closet racist' nothing will.
I don't read her all that regularly, but I have no truck with this particular column.
I like GW and, all circumstances being the same, I'd vote for him again. But.......overall I do not consider him a conservative. Sorry folks. I had high hopes of a Reaganesque conservative in W, but that is simply not the case.
Two major things I wanted and feel we are all owed by Bush:
1 - Agressive, proactive action against terrorism. He's done pretty well, but the will to stand up to PC by profiling and leaving old ladies and babies alone (duh?) has just not been there.
2 - Firm and aggressive policy towards appointing constitutionalist judges to the federal courts (and publicly standing up to smears by DIMS). So so. He has time to redeem himself, but I don't expect any changes from what has been done thus far. My intuition says that the best we can hope for is that we don't end up with a *more* liberal court a few years from now.
Oh, and one other thing: How about some vetos for crying out loud?
That's fine, not that important to me. I just thought of it like a business and you promote from within, but now I understand.
Hate to depress you but President Bush has been in office for 5 years and has 3 to go. Perhaps with that extra year he can still capture some of those 'missed opportunities' you say he squandered.
What'll you do, hold your breathe until you turn blue? Not vote to reelect Bush for a third term? *snicker*
Pray for W and Our Freedom Winning Troops
That's my only real problem with Saint George. He never seems to get tired of spending MY money.
The sickening part is that the Freepers who are so busy composing his hagiography would be indignant if Clinton increased the scope and spending of the federal government as much as Bush has.
LEARN A LOT OF BOTH .... ASAP!
"Lets hope he nominates another O'Conner. Yea, that was a great appointment there!"
He could do worse. He could follow his daddy's example and appoint David Souter who was recommended to George H.W. Bush by his...er...his old pal Warren Rudman. You remember Rudman, he later supported John McCain in his unsuccessful bid to unseat George W. Bush. My guess it that it was the supposed "budget hawk" Rudman (of Hart-Rudman fame) who also talked pappa Bush into his tax flip flop. And we could also discuss pappa Bush and his son's cozying up to the Clintons. Now that's smart. No, I've had all of Dubya I can take. The mea culpa over Katrina was the last straw for me. Anyone who thought that would put an end to the left blaming Bush Jr. for what the MSM insisted was a botched federal relief effort is "stuck on stupid."
BTW, as lousy as she was (and I think she was lousy), I'd still take O'Conner over Souter any day.
Is this accurate?! No way!
I can't imagine why it seemed like 6 years. I guess it's because this administration has become so dreary. I appreciate your correction but I doubt the extra year will result in much. The initiative has been lost, and I can't see Dubya regaining it. Glad to know you're an optimist however. What depresses me most is that our likely choices will be Mclame, Frist, and Guiliani.
I don't think it's quite the same thing. Reagan wasn't crucified for the sins fo the Republican PArty and raised again on the third day.
President Bush's father gave us Thomas, which Ann now wants to give Reagan credit for...instead of Reagan's "brilliant" choices of O'Connor and Kennedy. *snicker*
I'm pretty much a constitutionalist. But I do think that the modern day lifespan has completely distorted the lifetime term of a Supreme Court Justice.
From wikipedia: Average human lifespan...for the end of the 18th Century was 37. Perhaps the US as a region was slightly higher but not much. It was only 49 by 1901 in the USA.
Also the lifetime term triggers in the selection process an unhealthy focus on youthful candidates in order to get someone on the Court for 50 damn years. A stealth liberal like Souter might have already revealed his true colors to the world if nominated ten years later.
I say these incredibly long terms are un-American. The whole point of the constitution is for the public to maintain control over the government. And public service was never imagined as a lifetime career a la Sen. Byrd until the 20th century.
Plus we obviously will be looking at all sorts of geriatric issues in the near future as relates to the SCOTUS. With modern day life support technology it's sure to get "complicated".
Why not a single 15 year term? That would also take some pressure off of these hearings. Really the lifeterm means a ridiculous amount of power to placed in the hands of the few. And the lifeterms are only increasing in longevity and therefore power.
Anyway Scalia would've been fantastic...but it is a healthy form of check & balance for the Executive to appoint a new Chief Justice from outside the Court. Don't let it become to tight a club. Send someone in there to remind them they must consider the views of the outside world. I think this is why it has been done many times throughout history.
I like Reagan's brilliant choice of Scalia. But I'm sure Dubya's choice of Roberts will make Scalia look like a left-winger, especially since Leahy thinks so much of Roberts. I suppose one can hope. On the whole, I'll still take Reagan over Bush Jr.
LOL.
President Bush the younger, is as Conservative, if not more so, and has done far more Conservative things, than Reagan. Go read Southack's personal page for the list, which has been posted and reposted and re-reposted for years and updated and posted again, all over FR.
I'm not one of the drooling sycophants of the president's, here, but I am a stickler for facts over emotion and selective memory.
Reagan nominated some good and some dreadful people. You and Ann aren't allowed to ignore the dreadful ones and she shouldn't slam Roberts all the time; it's petulant and very stupid on her part!
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.