Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-33 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?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: wagglebee
"any woman will not do"

Ain't your call, hon.

4 posted on 09/26/2005 6:15:57 PM PDT by Monti Cello
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

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!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

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
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

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/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: wagglebee

"Women's rights"? Oh, yeah, the unfettered "right" to kill your children!


8 posted on 09/26/2005 6:22:58 PM PDT by Emmett McCarthy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

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.


9 posted on 09/26/2005 6:24:12 PM PDT by indianrightwinger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

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.


10 posted on 09/26/2005 6:26:38 PM PDT by clearlight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

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
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: wagglebee
Ruth is pro-woman?


15 posted on 09/26/2005 6:28:29 PM PDT by Zuben Elgenubi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: wagglebee
Justice Ginsburg has improperly allowed her politics to spill over into her professional duties

She 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
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

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
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

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
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

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.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

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)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: wagglebee

27 posted on 09/26/2005 6:45:09 PM PDT by RGSpincich
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

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.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

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.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: wagglebee

Judge Ginsburg should have never been sitting on this court.


37 posted on 09/26/2005 6:58:47 PM PDT by freekitty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: wagglebee

Ginsburg is not qualified to be on the Court, or any court.


39 posted on 09/26/2005 7:03:50 PM PDT by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-33 next last

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson