Posted on 09/24/2005 4:31:12 AM PDT by alessandrofiaschi
"I do think it is somewhat harder for conservatives to get hired in law teaching than it is for liberals," said Calabresi. "It is even harder for conservative women and minorities than white males. Conservative women and minorities are treated as objectionable because there must be self-loathing involved if you are a conservative. It's hard to generalize about, but I do think it is a problem."
JRB JRB JRB
I would love JRB. Bush and Rove like Gonzales, and are afraid of fight the left and right at the same time. So its still anyones guess.
Why not Steven G. Calabresi for SCJ?
real diversity on the court
how about a non-lawyer?
No bias or prejudice there.
I nominate Mark Levin! now get off the phone you dope
Part of the problem is that the first thing they do when you get into law school is they brainwash you.
The "views" that a nominee may not express, lest it lead to a "contentious and ultimately unsuccessful...process", are the views of the mainstream. They are the views that elected the President. They are the views that have elected the majority in Congress since 1994. They are the views that elected Presidents in 1968, 1972, 1980, 1984, 1988, 2000 and 2004.
They are the views that, by now, should dominate the Supreme Court.
The reason that they do not is that the Senate, on both sides of the aisle, is far, far to the left of the voters.
In our obsession with who becomes President, we are in danger of overlooking the type of persons who get elected to the Senate.
It is outrageous that a Leftist activist ten standard deviations out of the mainstream is confirmed without debate, by 96-3, while a paragon of moderation like Roberts is denied the votes of the Democrat leadership.
We need Senators who will fight. We don't have 'em.
...the pool of conservative white males...
...Democratic pool of minority and female candidates.
Interesting. Conservative v. Demoncrat.
Bump ity bump
Let's cause Teddy K's head to explode. Ann Coulter or Laura Ingrham
Yes, we jusst do not have a wide enough choice for nominees to the Supreme Court.
Where is the Patagonian-Ameican nominee? Why not nominate a Nigarian citizen? Or a teenager? Or a ditch-digger? And why aren't dwarfs represented? Or the mentally ill? Or a chicken?
Janice Rogers Brown, Janice Rogers Brown, Janice Rogers Brown, Janice Rogers Brown, Janice Rogers Brown, Janice Rogers Brown, Janice Rogers Brown, Janice Rogers Brown, Janice Rogers Brown.
That will REALLY make the swimmer's head explode.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1323417/posts
The elephant being the 17th amendment.
I heard the story reported on WRKO 68 AM radio Boston the other night and I cant find it in print. If anyone can help me that would be great.
The diversity is too shallow, there are not enough conservative lawyers.
Instead we have DOJ hacks who function as extra prosecutors, or ACLU stooges. Essentially anti-individuals.
We need a pool which has LESS left wing looneies and more mainstream conservatives.
Ginsberg should NEVER have gone beyond committee, she is just plain NUTS.
Thanks for the link. But can you explayn why it could be useful to repeal 17th A., in order to have a "better" nominee?
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.