Posted on 10/01/2005 11:10:50 PM PDT by churchillbuff
Suzanna Rodell and her friends need to elect a true moderate to the presidency, before asking a president voted in by a conservative constituency to change his stripes for her beliefs, or supposing that she knows what he needs. It's the right thing to do.
Both Jay Seculo and Mark Levin strongly support Judge Roberts.
Instead of worrying, say a prayer and contact the president.
president@whitehouse.gov
Put you main thought in the subject line.
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
The President doesn't owe them anything they didn't vote for him. Ever eat moderate ice cream? Ever have moderate sex? This moderate stuff is just crap anyway. It's the common tactic of liberals to couch themselves so that anyone who doesn't agree with them is extreme. I wouldn't even play the game. I'd tell them to go home and play with their bloody coathangers.
Yeah, it's galling. The Democrats have already said they'll filibuster the next one, yet they don't know who the next nominee will be.
WRONG! Bush doesn't owe the liberals anything. Elections have consequences. Bush won. HE gets to pick the nominee, not the liberals, not the press. Here's hoping Bush nominates another conservative just like Roberts that Ted Kennedy and Chucky Schumer can't filibuster.
He's given conservatives like me a lot to be troubled about, that's true. Spending increases more than under Clinton; education boondoggles; an FDR program proposed for New Orleans; campaign finance assault on free speech; wide open borders; and failure to give us a certified conservative (as he promised) for the Supreme Court.
If he nominates Janice Brown this time, I'll be the first to applaud. But if he nominates another candidate with no discernable views -- again breaking his promise to give us a Scalia or Thomas -- yes, I'll be troubled. That's the problem with having principles, you have to judge politicians by the standard of those principles. It meanse I can't be a knee-jerk cheerleader for Bush or any politician. I have to judge them by what they do, not by the R after their name. So I get a lot of grief from the knee-jerk Bush cheerleaders on FR, the folks who automatically say that anything he does is the "conservative" thing to do -- even when it's really a liberal position, or at best a disappointing squishy move, like the Roberts nomination.
He was extremely convincing when he discussed "judicial process" and how the first and most important part of the process is to make absolutely certain that there is a strong and certain Constitutional basis for a case to even be heard by the Court.
I have a feeling that the Court may be considerably less busy in the future, and that's a good thing.
To be fair, she wants him to appoint a "moderate." I wish I could be confident that Bush won't oblige her, but he seems a lot more concerned about what liberals think of him, than what conservatives think of him --- witness his FDR program for New Orleans.
If it's a Conservative female minority judge, I'd love to see Fathead and Schmuck filibuster her. Then they can preach to me about "Republicans being 'sexist' and 'racist'" til they're blue in the face.
Oh... sure! And we'll fire them all.
Some liberal-mind-driven people use pathetic fallacies to disguise their impotency. These writers attempt in vain to consummate their desire, wielding their residual power through their pen against everything that is morally right, in short... against all conservatives.
Hope you're right. What worries me is that his vague generalizations sounded very much like Souter's testimony when he was nominated. He also stressed the importance of judicial restraint - and of precedent and stare decisis. Souter actually had a more conservative record than Roberts. Roberts helped out a radical gay rights lawsuit (the Colorado case); Souter had never been involved in anything like that. And Roberts represented the anti-property-rights side in the Lake Tahoe lawsuit that ended up being a massive defeat for property rights. Also, Roberts in his hearings didn't sound at all troubled with the Kelo decision that gave free reign to eminent domain. One thing he is not: an open, avowed, certified conservative like Scalia or Thomas. Both of them were on-the-record hard-core conservatives when they were nomninated. There are plenty of judges who have similar records now, but Bush went for a mystery candidate instead (the way his dad did with Souter). I hope it turns out better than Souter did, but neither you nor I can be sure at this point -- and that's the problem.
Hold up. If what you say here is true, then why are you posting as though you have absolutely no doubt that Roberts is less than a Scalia or a Thomas? Don't be schizophrenic, please. You can't have it both ways.
You are terribly sure that Roberts is a terrible choice, now you say you hope he's not? If so, why are you consistenly posting where he is affirmatively not a good choice?
Hmmm....
If you want a Google GMail account, FReepmail me.
They're going fast!
Did You Know That John Kerry Served in Vietnam?
Wasn't Scalia confirmed 98-0? I'll have to do some more reading, but it seems to be that he was a "stealth" candidate to some degree. Thomas was as well, or else he wouldn't have made it past the Dem senate. He was cruising, relatively speaking, before the Anita Hill deal.
6 Republicans voted against Bork. An open, fiery conservative isn't quite likely to get confirmed even if we get an up or down vote.
I assume Specter's chairmanship will hold him to vote yes but there are plenty of RINOs in the senate.
Because both of them were known, vocal, hard-line conservatives WHEN THEY WERE NOMINATED. There was no mystery about their views, the way there is about Roberts' views. If Bush had fulfilled his promise to nominate a Scalia or Thomas, he would have nominated a candidate who -- like them -- was a clear, unmistakable right winger, somebody whose views are open, on the record and unmistakable. A Luttig, a Janice Brown, an Edith Jones -- not a "mystery meat" candidate who says things so vague that everybody (from you on the right to this editorial writer on the left) can agree with.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-cass24sep24,0,983371.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions
Invoking the Clinton Precedent
"To refresh our memories, President Clinton had a chance to make two appointments to the Supreme Court. The first came with the retirement of Justice Byron White, a conservative who cast one of the two votes against Roe vs. Wade. And just one year before his retirement, White, joining three other justices, dissented in the 5-4 decision in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania vs. Casey, which reaffirmed the basic holding in Roe.
With the court so closely divided, what did Clinton do to preserve the balance? Did he replace White with another conservative, someone equally clear that there is no constitutional protection for abortion? He chose the former general counsel of the American Civil Liberties Union, a leading liberal law scholar whose special interest was women's rights: Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Any question how close she was going to be to White?
The president did what presidents always do. He picked someone he thought would be a good justice according to his own views. He didn't worry about preserving the balance on the court, and he certainly didn't worry about maintaining the court's division over abortion."
I doubt that he will nominate another Catholic --- so that would seem to eliminate Gonzales and a majority of hispanics.
Even though Kennedy is Catholic, but doesn't vote like a Catholic, the court already has Scalia, Thomas and Roberts in the Catholic column.
Best to look closely at the Evangelic names being bantered around...
Can you imagine the wrath that Schumer etal. would get from the religious right? Oh boy.
You better do some more reading, because he was not in any way a stealth candidate. He was a U of Chicago law professor -who had published many law articles of hard-right persuasion, and had voted accordingly as a federal appeals judge. He was well-known as one of the most conservative members of the legal community. The big vote for him was because he was the first Italian ever nominated.
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.