Posted on 09/27/2005 9:15:47 AM PDT by demlosers
true, but you can't really trust them. edith clement was a huge favorite a couple months ago for the 1st pick and Roberts only showed up at the end. You could have made a killing if you took him a few days before the pick was made.
I forgot that the dems only care about infanticide. In that case, her track record is blank. I think we have our next stealth Scalia and this time, she's a she.
Im with ya but unfortunately Bush is social liberal and I wouldnt expect him to show any balls on this one. I expect to be stabbed in the back, RINOs are good at stabbing the true conservatives in the back and I dont expect them to stop performing this.
i agree. i think all this a lot of spin so no one is ready to attack. with people like Brown, Owen, Luttig, Estrada, Jones, garza, etc... within seconds of the announcement the Dems and the Left will be all over them like glue. You'll be hearing about "Priscilla Owen's America" and the like. They have already opposed them, hey already have all the materials prepared, all the talking points, etc...
By picking someone slightly under the radar it allows the WH to define the pick before the Dems can smear him/her, like they did with Roberts. People saw the announcement. They saw he was young, good looking, humble, charming, good family with a wife and young kids, soft spoken, etc.. The dems had no credibility after that in saying he was some deomn who was going to be a radical on the court. In essence, his confirmation was secure right away. I look for a similar effort to be made this time.
Which is code for "hold mah beer", prepare for another RINO as a Supreme..
It is time that President Bush nominated a woman. Women do have a different perspective because of their different gender experience. Many Republican women are watching closely. The party is not particularly known for its outreach to women and its recognition of "women's issues." In fact, in a lot of the dialogue I have read from conservatives here, the view of the proper role of women in society is frozen somewhere in the 1950s.
The principle of a fair jury is to be judged by ones peers. I know that SCOTUS decides the law and not fact, but the overwhelmingly lop sided gender makeup of the court calls into question whether women are truly considered equal with men in our society in their intelligence, disposition, knowledge and abilities.
Greater than 50% of the population is female. Why do we have only one female on the Court? It is obvious to me that when the rubber meets the road, women are still looked upon as inferior.
Choosing a justice in the mold of conservative Justices Antonin Scalia or Clarence Thomas, as Bush has repeatedly vowed to do, would likely move the court dramatically to the right, where it could remain for decades.This is my prayer on a daily basis.
I really don't care who the nominee is as long as they are relatively young, conservative, firmly grounded and a strong originalist.
Aside from that, which I agree with. Having a true conservative woman would show that there ARE conservative women and would prevent liberals like Feinstein and Boxer from claiming to speak for all women. I also think if Roe and other abortion decisions are going to be handed down, it helps politically to have a woman in the majority to defend against claims that it's just a bunch of chauvinist male pigs that are treating women like second class citizens. I mean, if a woman wrote the opinion upholding notification or the partial birth abortion law, image wise would be much better than if a guy did it.
You're right, there's only one woman on the SC; I always suspected Ginsburg was my college freshman roommate in drag!!
Forget about diversity................ give me a good Jewish boy, G.W.
Give me F. Lee Levin.
I'm beginning to wonder whether this floating of Gonzales is a ploy to pacify conservatives. This way, when the President comes up with another blank slate stealth candidate, the people looking for an originalist will be too busy breathing a sigh of relief at dodging a Gonzales nomination to notice that an originalist wasn't nominated. Based on the confirmation hearings, it appears that, at best, Roberts is a minimalist rather than an originalist. Time will tell but it's an awful gamble to take on a 30 year appointment.
Is she strong pro-life ?
Whoa. I didn't know that one. What a PC schmuck.
Yeah, I'm thinking same thing - White House if you are lurking -
An Alberto Gonzalaz SC Nomination = In your face all you dumb social conservatives, you are real chumps
Here is a thread about U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Consuelo Maria Callahan that was posted after she was appointed by GWB in 2003 .
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/842916/posts
Yes, she is strongly pro-life.
"Wasn't a 'strict constructionist' the prime requisite?.."
What you promise to get elected is not always what you do.
The voting public has to give credit for good intentions.
It will be interesting to see who is a man of his word.
I suppose that, technically, O'Connor is still on the Court. However, she is impotent. I believe that she is not allowed to partcipate if she won't be around when the actual decision is rendered.
Hey, leave John F-ing Kerry out of this.
I don't care what the Dems say or do and neither should W.
He should pick a solid originalist that is confirmable, but
not worry about Dem's attacking the nominees record.
If they Bork this first nominee, then send up another
even more conservative orginalist.
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.