Posted on 09/30/2005 12:31:02 PM PDT by slowhand520
Hey, speculation is part of the fun of politics. I don't think there's a thing in the world wrong with it.
There was no conservative opposition to Ginsberg.
He has a proven track record of nominating conservatives that is unblemished.
At least not by the measure of "no conservative opposition." I haven't seen any analysis on a judge by judge basis. There has to be some reason why the liberals urgently object to the likes of Saad, Myers and Owen, but not to the likes of Griffin and McKeague.
In all honesty, I'm not 100 percent sold that Roberts would be a definite "overturn Roe" vote. Stare decisis is a lot more important to high level legal minds than it is to us activists.
No sarcasm taken. I've just been involved in some other threads on this pick that have gotten a little heated with folks thinking it's the worst possible thing that people, especially the media (and I'm in the news business, there are a few of us conservatives around, so I've found myself stirring up some hornets defending my trade which is not exactly the most popular entity around FR), are actually speculating on what President Bush will do. There's nothing wrong with speculation, by the media or anyone else, but the bottom line is that nobody's going to know for sure until probably a couple of hours before the announcement, because that's the way it's done with USSC picks. I've searched my memory and I can't remember any time where there's been a really far in advance scoop on a USSC pick. Those are things that presidents, all presidents, hold very close to the vest.
Early in my career I thought I had a case won because there was a published opinion on the very same legal issue written by the very same judge who had my case. I knew I was in trouble when the judge said, "you know, counsel, I've been thinking about that case and have decided maybe I was wrong . . . ."
I hope I'm wrong, and that he does go straight ideology, because ultimately the pressure on even people of "good character" to "be reasonable" gets irresistable and they "grow" in their positions. (i.e., become liberal)
There have been no complaints about Bush's nominations at those critical levels, except from liberals.
He hasn't failed us yet.
True. All the names I mentioned were nominees to the circuit courts of appeal. Even there, opposition comes only from the DEM side of the aisle.
And as I noted, I don't have any facts to base an opinion on, and generally give the benefit of the doubt to GWB. But I don't take GOP acquiescence as a sign the nominee is conservative.
Scalia, Thomas, "Scalito", Roberts; it works for me. When Ginsburg or Stevens drop (hopefully before January 2009), one of their replacements will be gonzalez.
BRAVO!!!! You said it like it was and is!!
The apology got me more than anything. And I loved the way Brown stood up for what he KNEW was true. The left sure didn't like hearing it, did they?
Where are all of the missing NO police that were on the payroll/ NOT ???
GW will once again prove that he's miles ahead of them all in his next appointment...just as he did with Roberts.
Keep the faith... it's gonna happen.
Nana
I TOLD YOU SO!!
NOW what do you have to say about Bush??
O.K.
NOW what do you think about this nominee?
If the Federalist Society thinks it is a good choice I will certainly defer to its judgment rather than that of the Chronic Antis who constantly harp and nag about every Bush choice or decision. Anyone who has Bush's complete trust is fine with me.
I'm really surprised that the social conservatives are upset with the nomination of an evangelical Christian.
She has no judicial track record.
She's too old.
She's a family crony.
She was until very recently a Democrat who actively supported Democrat candidates.
I haven't the slightest idea where she stands on anything.
She was chosen over other candidates with much better and more reliable credentials.
And - Chuckie Schumer likes her - which should say a lot more than the Federalist Society endorsement about her unsuitability for office.
Maybe life is a dream and there is no reality here.
Did Rehnquist have any judicial experience before he was nominated?
no he did not. he went right from the nixon admin. to the sup ct.
You weren't supposed to give the answer so fast, lol!
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.