Posted on 10/03/2005 4:35:19 PM PDT by quidnunc
That adds a new meaning to "judicial restraint."
You said...this is GW's last good chance to get a conservative judge on the court.
***
I believe that Pres. Bush will appoint one or two MORE S. Ct. justices. I am hoping he will replace Stevens and Ginsburg. They are not swing votes, and I would like to see Brown or Owen in those slots.
I like the appointments Bush has made to the courts thus far. I will trust him on this until he proves me wrong.
I agree regarding Thomas. I disagree regarding Scalia. He succumbs to temptation from time to time in making the Constitution mean what he wants it to mean.
Yeah, don't let the recent history of the Senate get in the way of your opinions.
And RuthyBG could lose another 12 pounds and disappear entirely!
McLame wants to be Prez. If he were seen blocking a qualified conservative for the SCOTUS, that would end his chances once and for all. I think anyone who looks carefully at the politics know Hagel, McLame and the rest of the RINOs would have to roll over for Bush. Now they don't. He gave them an unqualified wus, a FOB(Friend of Bush).
Since WHEN did McCain ever give a damn about conservatives? He thinks he can win in the middle because he thinks the media loves him, not realizing that the media uses him like a rented mule.
I think anyone who looks carefully at the politics know Hagel, McLame and the rest of the RINOs would have to roll over for Bush.
I think you need to look at recent history, namely the Group of 14. THEY set the parameters now for the nomination process. THEY broke Dem filibusters but also took the nuclear option away from the GOP.
And power is a funny thing - once a politician has it, they are loathe to give it up. The Gang of 14 now has almost absolute power over the parameters of the nomination process. They will stick together. And they are moderates. A RINO distrusts a strict constructionist as much as a Dem. They would not vote to confirm someone like JRB for SCOTUS. As an appeals court judge, her rulings can be overturned by SCOTUS. But once she's on the Supremes, that's it. That's the final word. And they will not willingly let a professed strict constructionist on the court.
You seem incapable of understanding power politics. So does Bush.
You'd never know that around here.....
We need to get Miers on the court and one mone justice to insure that all the socialist laws that the courts have created are terminated. We needed the President to throw down the gaunlet, so we could energize the base in 2006. But he failed to get the job done.
If Miers votes the way I like on the Court, and I trust that she will, or Bush would not have risked his legacy by nominating her, then that is good a result as there can be. Each justice gets one vote on a case. None of the commentators have ever nominated, or gotten confirmation for, a Supreme Court justice. Bush has. His judicial nominations to date have been right on the mark. There is no reason to think that the Miers nomination is of a lower quality, just because it doesn't give some the fight they want.
I agree wholeheartedly but I noticed you started your comment with 'IF'.
You said: I agree wholeheartedly but I noticed you started your comment with 'IF'.
***
I would say that about ANY nominee. We do not know how any nominee or sitting justice will vote on the next case he/she hears.
Have you seen the latest Drudge Headline?
In her 1989 run for Dallas City Council, Harriet Miers filled out a questionnaire from the Lesbian/Gay Political Coalition of Dallas, where she indicated her support for full civil rights for gays and lesbians and backed AIDS education programs for the city of Dallas...
HARRIET MIERS SUPPORTED FULL CIVIL RIGHTS FOR GAYS AND LESBIANS; BACKED AIDS EDUCATION PROGRAMS FOR CITY OF DALLAS
Who doesn't support full civil rights for gays? As long as she doesn't support special rights for them. Sorry, Bush's nominations have been excellent so far, and I trust him going forward. I might have chosen someone else, but be aware there is NO assurance that Janice Rogers Brown or any other nominee would perform as anticipated.
Because she's my age, she was a woman in a man's world and so she got their on her own and not as a result of NOW and affirmative action etc. It is a talent I have consistantly seen in women who got there on their own who started in that time period.
It's hard to explain to someone who hasn't been through it, but it is a survival tactic for bright women who blaze trails. I'm talking here about self made women.
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.