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

To: JCEccles
"The point is, Warren had no prior experience as a judge either. In that sense they are equally qualified.

What obscure point are you trying to make? Do you even know?"

If that's what you meant that that's what you should have said.

The point is that Warren had PLENTY of 'record' on various issues because he had been a public figure, and Governor of California, one of our largest states. OK, he changed on some of them, but at least he wasn't a cipher.

85 posted on 10/03/2005 3:41:40 PM PDT by Al Simmons (The Choice in 2008 will be between Stalin and a Republican; Who will you help to elect?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies ]


To: Al Simmons
The point is that Warren had PLENTY of 'record' on various issues because he had been a public figure, and Governor of California, one of our largest states. OK, he changed on some of them, but at least he wasn't a cipher.

LOL!

94 posted on 10/03/2005 3:44:31 PM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies ]

To: Al Simmons

I am confused here. What is the role of a Supreme Court Justice?

It is to interpret the Constitution. Period. No politics, no activism, no self importance.

The question is, can she do this? Because if you are all hoping that she will be an activist for the right, than you are no better than the activists on the left.


96 posted on 10/03/2005 3:45:24 PM PDT by EQAndyBuzz (Liberal Talking Point - Bush = Hitler ... Republican Talking Point - Let the Liberals Talk)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies ]

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