Posted on 10/04/2005 7:33:33 PM PDT by jdm
Edited on 10/04/2005 7:41:50 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
Nothing passes judicial review. Ever. The Court can only look into cases when a party is actively injured by it. Next time someone is using CFR to bludgeon an activist group, the party could take it to Court and hopefully get the First Ammendment Restriction part struck down.
Heck, 100 years from now, an obscure portion of the Patriot Act could come back and bite someone in the @$$. S/he could go to the Supreme Court and get a judicial review then. As long as there is a possibilty that a legislature or federal action may injure a party or it's Constitutionality is in question, there can always be judicial review.
Try having some patience...I answered them. You aren't my top priority. :-)
The supreme court is very unlikely to revisit cases that it has already ruled on, such as CFR.
Hey Einstein! Mark has gone to bed.
No you can't. Stevens had a track record. Kennedy had a track record. What good did that do?
I might, if like then it wasn't clear to me that you understood what I was objecting to. I clarified.
I find it difficult to believe Bush would nominate someone for the appellate bench, have them confirmed then turn around and nominate them for a higher position. I find it much more plausible that the individuals who accepted appellate nominations understood that their names would be off the table for SC nominations.
I also find it amusing that people not privy to discussions Bush has had with the nominees and his own advisers can presuppose to know his overarching plan or motivation.
Information will surface through court transcripts, op-ed pieces, briefs and speeches which will give some indication about her judicial philosophy. I for one am going to hold my fire until fact replaces fiction. And it will.
We have a majority this time, and as I said below,
"Do you really think all those big bad Senators would go after Janice Rogers, a sharecroppers daughter who rose to the ranks of Justice on the CA Supreme Court and not confirm her???"
Answer: No, She'd get through just as Clarence Thomas did.
Excuse me. That is good enough for me, for now.
No, the President's numbers are going down because of the President. He needs to get of this open border stance, he needs to get serious in the war on terror, he needs to be Commander in Chief.
Are you sure that they had solid track records?
Regardless, a track record will allow a more informed decision to be made. There is always a chance that we might "get lucky" and just go with someone with no track record at all, but it's a huge risk for such a vital position.
Look. I just feel that Bush blew a great chance to eviscerate the left and let them off the hook. I feel we could have smacked them hard and won. Now, we will only have to fight this battle some time in the future.
Meanwhile, liberals will nominate liberals and Republicans will be consigned to a future of stealth or mediocre nominees.
Until liberalism is dead and gone and it doesn't leave even a hint of it's spawn behind, we have to rely on the GOP.
You could use two bases to launch military attacks. One base has all the right equipment and personnel but it will need years and years of retrofitting and construction to accomodate your war machines. By then, the war might be over, not necessarily in your favor.
The other is somewhat overgrown with plants, some equipment is missing and the people may not be 100% reliable. But with some renovation and hirings/firings, you end up with a viable base ready to strike the enemy hard and fast.
Which one would you use?
The last times we try to "teach the GOP a lesson" we got stuck with "Malaise the Peanut Guy" and got gang-raped by the "Most Ethical Administration Ever." I'm not sure I look forward to that. The GOP isn't perfect by a longshot but the Demons are absolutely depraved.
"God may not be a Republican, but Satan is definitely a Democrat."
If you disagree with the President you are no longer a conservative.
____No, but I've rarely seen such a ffeeding frenzy on the left as with conservatives when they think a Republican has "betrayed" them!
The sainted Ronald Reagan was victimized by this as well...I remember the "Let Reagan be Reagan" slogans---as if RR was beig led astray by his advisors.
If you vote for a President, that implies a sense of trust. If you don;'t trust a candidate, don't vote for him...if you do vote, do it with a sense of faith in the person you're backing..
Let the Miers hearings determine whether or not Bush made the right choice..in the meantime, assume the best.
m!
_
I actually don't disagree with you. I think that the chances of a a publicly conservative woman would be just as good as Miers'. I would rather go with a known quantity.
The point of my previous post is that the democrats don't fear loss of the black vote by going after black nominees. Thomas was confirmed, but not because of fear of backlash due to his race - the democrats did a good job of portraying him as a traitor to his race.
Roberts was confirmed and so would Rogers - Bush just doesn't want a fight.
I think the most important thing she has going for her is that she vetted Dubya's nominees. He got to observe her during that vetting procedure, got to listen to her reasoning. He has been listening to her reasoning for years, but this was the first practical application of it as it applied to the courts.
During the discussions on the various nominees, her judicial philosophy would become very clear.
Remember, he chose Cheney because he observed his way of working during the vetting procedure for VP.
And frequently air conditioned head. ;-)
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.