Skip to comments.
What Would a 'Life Strictly Construed' Mean for the High Court?
Legal Times via Law.com ^
| 17 October 2005
| T.R. Goldman
Posted on 10/15/2005 3:04:02 AM PDT by Racehorse
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-37 last
To: GarySpFc
I fully realize that. However, you do not seem to grasp Mier's belief system goes to her very core of her being, UNLIKE Kennedy. Her value system is so strong it will demand she see the Constitution through the lens of both the Founders and God.
***
How do you know that? Only God knows someone's heart.
Did you know that Kennedy almost voted to overturn Roe, but chickened out?
To: Racehorse
". . . two weeks into the tumult surrounding her nomination, some things about Miers are clear: She is scrupulous, deferential to authority, and follows the rules -- not just in law but in life. And that, more than anything else, say those who know her, will determine how Miers interprets the Constitution and how she will judge."
There's nothing better than that Lime Kool-Aid!!! ;)
22
posted on
10/15/2005 8:55:52 AM PDT
by
etradervic
(I love the smell of napalm in the morning. It smells like...victory.)
To: etradervic
I love it when the DU'ers start posting on FR....
23
posted on
10/15/2005 9:11:47 AM PDT
by
Tempest
(The alarmist, cannibals, extremist, subversives, and DUer's all need something to unite over...)
To: Racehorse
I think this is an interesting take on her and it had occurred to me as well. She seems like a person who follows the rules, not flights of fancy and wonder. I'm not like that myself all the time, but I admire someone who can be. Give her a chance to speak!
To: Do not dub me shapka broham
I would prefer not to have Glendon meddling with the justices, thank you. Besides, constitutional law is only made "difficult" or "complex" by those who seek to distort the constitution. I think the former conservatives attacking Miers are losing sight of that essential fact.
To: Tempest
I love it when the DU'ers start posting on FR....
You should check the "InForum" posts before you start throwing DU'er around. Because I do not like the nomination of a stealth empty-skirt who has spent her life sitting on the fence does not make me a "DU'er".
26
posted on
10/15/2005 9:32:58 AM PDT
by
etradervic
(I love the smell of napalm in the morning. It smells like...victory.)
To: Rudder
Anal retentive Two responses in and the psychobabble begins.
I would expect someone on the SCOTUS to be fastidious even ultra.
To: Do not dub me shapka broham
"She is wedded to stare decisis..." So in other words, she's committed to upholding precedent.
Now try the whole sentence.
....... "She is wedded to stare decisis, wedded to the text of a statute. She lives her life strictly construed."
....... Makes a difference doesn't it? Decisions made against the strictly construed Constitution are not stare decisis they are just wrong. Stare decisis means lower courts should abide rulings of higher courts. The SCOTUS is not bound by stare decisis.
To: The Red Zone
She will work just fine on the team. It's not like they go off into 9 different solitary monastic cells. Miers will get to sit at the "Cool Justices' Table". Hope someday it will be a table for 5.
To: Cboldt
Mr. Bush doesn't seem to like to have discussions. Especially when they involve disagreements.
30
posted on
10/15/2005 11:13:31 AM PDT
by
TAdams8591
(It's the Supreme Court, stupid!)
To: Cboldt
Oh, they're carrying on just fine, thank you very much. And for each loud Miers dissent in the Senate GOP, a kitten is killed another Democrat will vote for her
31
posted on
10/15/2005 11:16:53 AM PDT
by
The Red Zone
(Florida, the sun-shame state, and Illinois the chicken injun.)
To: Mike Darancette
I would expect someone on the SCOTUS to be fastidious even ultra.And an anally retentive person would fulfill your expectations.
32
posted on
10/15/2005 1:43:45 PM PDT
by
Rudder
To: Rudder
And an anally retentive person would fulfill your expectations Your Freudian BS not mine.
To: USPatriette
Why not?
Do you have a problem with a brilliant legal scholar adding her talents to a Court that doesn't seem to be equipped to the task of discerning the plain meaning of vital clauses in the U.S. Constitution?
You'd prefer to install someone who doesn't even have a passing acquaintance with that document, even though-presumably-that is-or should-be one of the prerequisites for sitting on the Court in the first place?
34
posted on
10/15/2005 3:20:04 PM PDT
by
Do not dub me shapka broham
("We don't want a Supreme Court justice just like George W. Bush. We can do better.")
To: USPatriette
35
posted on
10/15/2005 3:22:52 PM PDT
by
The Red Zone
(Florida, the sun-shame state, and Illinois the chicken injun.)
To: Do not dub me shapka broham
36
posted on
10/15/2005 3:23:08 PM PDT
by
The Red Zone
(Florida, the sun-shame state, and Illinois the chicken injun.)
To: curiosity
I agree with you completely. I've had it with Bush and his whole family. I will never vote for another Bush as long as I live. I want to see the political ambitions of Jeb and George P. crushed. We should have learned our lesson from our experience with H.W. They're a classic pseudo-conservative family of Rinos. Seconded!
Even if they were rabid right-wingers-such as myself-I still wouldn't want another one of them to set foot in the Oval Office, except perhaps on a guided White House tour.
This is a republic, not an aristocracy.
37
posted on
10/15/2005 3:27:02 PM PDT
by
Do not dub me shapka broham
("We don't want a Supreme Court justice just like George W. Bush. We can do better.")
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-37 last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson