The analytical framework by which a Senate Democrat determines support for a judicial nominee is simply whether he supports, with sufficient zeal, the political agenda of the Democratic Party. If not, it matters not how much prior experience the nominee has as a judge, nor how distinguished his career has been; he is just not acceptable. This hadn't even occurred to me, but it is the absolute truth.
1 posted on
09/26/2005 6:12:03 PM PDT by
wagglebee
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-33 next last
To: wagglebee
Ginsburg can resolve her dilemma by LEAVING THE COURT ~ the sooner the better too!
2 posted on
09/26/2005 6:13:50 PM PDT by
muawiyah
(/ hey coach do I gotta' put in that "/sarcasm " thing again?)
To: wagglebee
"any woman will not do" Ain't your call, hon.
To: wagglebee
Dear, Ms. Ginsburg,
STFU!
5 posted on
09/26/2005 6:16:51 PM PDT by
airborne
(My hero - my nephew! Sean is home! Thank you God!)
To: wagglebee
So, Ginsburg wishes to "advance women's rights." Which rights, specifically? Are American women denied rights?
Disgusting that the GOP let this internationalist wingnut waltz through the confirmation process virtually unopposed.
6 posted on
09/26/2005 6:20:12 PM PDT by
Mr. Mojo
To: wagglebee
This screed from the woman that wants to lower the age of consent to 12 years old.
So, a 40 year old man (in her eyes) should be able to take your 12 year old daughter out and seduce her into having sex with him, it would be fine with her and legal.
And if it just so happens that it isn't a man that wants to seduce your 12 year old then of course it would be okay for a 40 year old woman to to seduce your 12 year old daughter also.
She is just do special, a special POS!
7 posted on
09/26/2005 6:22:56 PM PDT by
stockpirate
(John Kerry & FBI files ==> http://www.freerepublic.com/~stockpirate/)
To: wagglebee
"Women's rights"? Oh, yeah, the unfettered "right" to kill your children!
To: wagglebee
In other Ginsberg words, some women are against their own rights! :-))
What a shame to have this dim bulb be the Justice on SCOTUS.
Well, you only have to blame the republicans who voted for her in droves.
To: wagglebee
"I have a list of highly qualified women, but the president has not consulted me."
Guess the President doesn't want another leftist idealogue on the court. But kudos to Ruthie for letting everyone know how entitled she feels. And I'd like to suggest Ann Coulter for Ginsberg's list.
To: wagglebee; AFPhys; prairiebreeze; onyx; ohioWfan; Texasforever; BigSkyFreeper; Tamzee; ...
Justice Ginsburg fumed, "I have a list of highly qualified women, but the president has not consulted me." How dare him! I expect the White House will hasten to correct this obvious slight, and promptly place a call to Queen -- er, Justice -- Ginsburg, asking forgiveness and begging her to fax her short list right away. Did she really say that???
11 posted on
09/26/2005 6:26:43 PM PDT by
Mo1
To: wagglebee
Ruth is pro-woman?
To: wagglebee
Justice Ginsburg has improperly allowed her politics to spill over into her professional dutiesShe feels very powerful and important. She is a genie I wish we could put back in a bottle.
16 posted on
09/26/2005 6:28:51 PM PDT by
Bahbah
To: wagglebee
Every Republican who voted for this leftist hag should be fired. She's done as much to wreck America as anyone living.
17 posted on
09/26/2005 6:30:14 PM PDT by
Cautor
To: wagglebee
Bush has a habit of setting traps in plain sight for Democrats like Ginsburg to fall into. They do so with comical regularity.
Stii you can't be too careful. I'd get her list just so I could double check the names to be excluded.
20 posted on
09/26/2005 6:35:03 PM PDT by
stevem
To: wagglebee
What about the rights of UNBORN WOMEN?????
22 posted on
09/26/2005 6:39:19 PM PDT by
HighlyOpinionated
(In Memory of Crockett Nicolas, hit and run in the prime of his Cocker Spaniel life, 9/3/05.)
To: wagglebee
This old hag needs to shut her face.
25 posted on
09/26/2005 6:43:06 PM PDT by
OldFriend
(One Man With Courage Makes a Majority ~ Andrew Jackson)
To: wagglebee
To: Peach; Mo1
How can we males, who after all had no say in being given a "Y" chromosome, expect a fair hearing from Justice Ginsburg when pitted against a female, especially if the case implicates a "women's rights" issue? For that matter, how can we be sure her votes on other cases, even those not directly touching upon any of her hot button issues, are not secretly cast with an eye to a future case advancing her private agenda? Astute observations, the author is correct to be concerned.
Thanks for the ping Mo. So, do you think the RAT SC judges also get the morning fax from George Soros and his moonbat crowd?
31 posted on
09/26/2005 6:47:10 PM PDT by
prairiebreeze
(Take the high road. You'll never have to meet a Democrat.)
To: wagglebee
So, let me get this straight; a sitting Supreme Court Justice, a person who is to rule on issues regarding the Constitution, knows so little of the document in question that they think should they have the right to nominate/appoint justices?
Hmmm...
*shakes head, walks off*
35 posted on
09/26/2005 6:53:29 PM PDT by
IYellAtMyTV
(The left -- playing russian roulette with an automatic.)
To: wagglebee
Judge Ginsburg should have never been sitting on this court.
To: wagglebee
Ginsburg is not qualified to be on the Court, or any court.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-33 next last
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson