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

Skip to comments.

Bush moves the Supreme Court to the left
enterstageright.com ^ | Oct 15 05 | David Pyne

Posted on 10/17/2005 10:26:58 AM PDT by churchillbuff

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-65 next last

1 posted on 10/17/2005 10:26:59 AM PDT by churchillbuff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: churchillbuff

This is nonsense. I am certain both Roberts and Miers will vote to overturn Roe.


2 posted on 10/17/2005 10:29:21 AM PDT by GarySpFc (Sneakypete, De Oppresso Liber)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: churchillbuff
I agree, Bush is moving the court to the left. I defy anybody to tell me that Roberts is the reliable conservative that Renquist was -- yet Roberts is replacing Renquist.

As for Miers, nobody knows where she stands, but her political and Bar background signal that she's a pragmatist at heart like the woman she'd replace - O'Connor. So Miers basically keeps the status quo in the O'Connor seat, while Roberts moves the Renquist seat somewhat toward the center, away from the predictable conservatism of Rehnquist.

3 posted on 10/17/2005 10:29:37 AM PDT by churchillbuff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: churchillbuff

Silly analysis. If Bush can nominate one or two more of these the court will have moved substantially to the right.


4 posted on 10/17/2005 10:30:33 AM PDT by Williams
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: churchillbuff
George Bush Moves Court to the Left

what a stupid statement. Miers may not be as right as Scalia or Thomas, but in no way is she left of center.

5 posted on 10/17/2005 10:30:36 AM PDT by curtisgardner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GarySpFc

What are their views on property rights and other issues regarding economic liberty?


6 posted on 10/17/2005 10:32:45 AM PDT by oblomov
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: churchillbuff
.... President Bush nominated not one but two relative moderates who enjoy wide bi-partisan support from liberal Democrats and are unlikely to ever vote to overturn the monstrous and extra constitutional Supreme Court decision of Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 ruling legalizing abortion.

More baseless attacks from the angry rightwing.

7 posted on 10/17/2005 10:33:22 AM PDT by Reagan Man (Secure our borders;punish employers who hire illegals;stop all welfare to illegals)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: churchillbuff
My fellow freepers:

Churchillbuff has spoken. Let us all listen carefully to this wise person because all his/her predictions and political analysis in the past have been proven absolutely right.

End of extreme sarcasm.

8 posted on 10/17/2005 10:33:56 AM PDT by jveritas (The Axis of Defeatism: Left wing liberals, Buchananites, and third party voters.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: churchillbuff

I am disheartened and disgusted, but despite what Bill Kristol says, I am not demoralized.


9 posted on 10/17/2005 10:34:16 AM PDT by oblomov
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: churchillbuff
David T. Pyne, Esq. serves as the President of the New Mexico Republican Assembly and as a Vice President of the National Federation of Republican Assemblies.

These "Republican Assemblies" are made up mostly of paleo-cons. The Michigan Republican Assembly endorsed Pat Buchanan in 2000.

Roberts did not unqualifyingly endorse stare decisis. In fact, he left himself plenty of wiggle room to overturn Roe v. Wade.

10 posted on 10/17/2005 10:37:17 AM PDT by sinkspur (If you're not willing to give Harriett Miers a hearing, I don't give a damn what you think.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: churchillbuff
The proof that this writer and his article are stuck on stupid comes in the opening paragraph, which says, "[Bush] has no litmus test for his judicial nominees on abortion clearly implying a willingness to select judicial nominees who support the arguably murderous judicial precedent set by Roe v. Wade in 1973...." Anyone who has not been living under a rock knows that the so-called "litmus test" is a charge from the left-Democrats, and that the President's response has been to deny the litmus test but say that all his judicial appointments will "obey the Constitution" and not "write laws from the bench."

Since the writer begins with an obvious falsehood, there is no reason to follow his argument further. He has a bias to sell, which thoughtful people should avoid.

Congressman Billybob

Latest column: "Racially-Based, Academic Nonsense"

11 posted on 10/17/2005 10:39:09 AM PDT by Congressman Billybob (Quoted by Rush, again, this Thursday. Hoohah.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: churchillbuff

This pick really bothers you, doesn't it? :0)


12 posted on 10/17/2005 10:39:22 AM PDT by Mo1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: churchillbuff

Good article. The Roberts pick was disappointing because of his lack of a paper trail. But he is a brilliant lawyer and undoubtedly qualified. The Miers pick is absolutely disgusting because of her lack of a paper trail, proof of liberal leanings in the limited paper trail she does have, and her total lack of qualifications. This pick, and the White House's reaction to the justified outrage among the right, has shown that the President is either out of touch, drunk with power, or both. He needs this wake up call.


13 posted on 10/17/2005 10:40:33 AM PDT by Texas Federalist (qualified to serve on the United States Supreme Court)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GarySpFc
"This is nonsense. I am certain both Roberts and Miers will vote to overturn Roe."

Bet you thought the same about Anthony Kennedy.

14 posted on 10/17/2005 10:41:39 AM PDT by Redbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: churchillbuff
This is the important issue we need to be asking. Bush's latest betrayal of conservatives may spell trouble for Republican efforts to retain their hard-won majority in both houses of Congress in next fall's election by depressing the turnout of the GOP's conservative base without which it cannot win elections.

Aww, who needs 'em? Just replace them with Mexicans, and everything'll be OK---they're better at following the Leader anyway....

15 posted on 10/17/2005 10:42:46 AM PDT by Map Kernow ("I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing" ---Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GarySpFc

Dont be so sure - Miers is a strong supporter of affirmative action - I dont see how you can seperate people who believe in value and benefits based on their race and those who believe that murdering children is wrong. Wrong is wrong - she was a stab in the back by Bush and he knows it. Can you say Hitlary in 08?


16 posted on 10/17/2005 10:43:31 AM PDT by sasafras ("Licentiousness destroyes order, and when chaos ensues, the yearning for order will destroy freedom.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: churchillbuff
Unlike recent Democrat presidential nominees Al Gore and John Kerry who declared they would never nominate a pro-life Supreme Court justice, Bush has repeatedly indicated that he has no litmus test for his judicial nominees on abortion clearly implying a willingness to select judicial nominees who support the arguably murderous judicial precedent set by Roe v. Wade in 1973.

Which is correct. Conservatives want originalists on the SCOTUS. It is believed that no originalist would support RvW.

17 posted on 10/17/2005 10:43:38 AM PDT by TheDon (The Democratic Party is the party of TREASON!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: churchillbuff
So presumably based on that statement, President George W. Bush himself does not know if Miers is a social conservative or a social liberal, which casts doubt on his statement that she is a strict constructionist who will not legislate from the bench.

I'm almost embarrased that a member of the bar cannot understand the distinction between being a social conservative, and being a strict constructionist.

18 posted on 10/17/2005 10:44:53 AM PDT by XJarhead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: churchillbuff

Bush mythically moving the court to the Left should make a Moveon.org "Conservative" like you happy Chamberlinbuff. But then it has nothing to do with facts, it has to do with you having yet another excuse to vent your rabid Bush hate. Would expect by now you would finally wake up to the reality that the Conservative Movement has left you Bucjhannaiete fringer far far far behind.


19 posted on 10/17/2005 10:45:47 AM PDT by MNJohnnie (I'll try to be NICER, if you will try to be SMARTER!.......Water Buckets UP!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mo1

Armchair quarterbacks and amateur second-guessers are what makes politics so interesting. If they just didn't take themselves so seriously...


20 posted on 10/17/2005 10:45:50 AM PDT by Russ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-65 next 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.

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