Posted on 10/20/2005 10:02:51 AM PDT by Crackingham
"We shouldn't forget many posters here at FR are really liberals, Democrats, Perotistas, Buchananites, or McCainiacs........."
And to which of these groups do you belong?
Hey, wait a sec, Brownie says he'll vouch for her competency...
We're in it for the duration.
(and well beyond, I might add)
The National Review might have had some misgivings, given the strong pull of identity politics in this country, especially for a member of a minority like Thomas. That doesn't mean, however, that they considered him a "blank slate."
Thomas was well-known even in his EEOC days as an Ayn Rand libertarian. He used to have his staff view The Fountainhead during lunch hour. He also had a name of his own around DC, unlike Miers, who no one had ever heard of!
An honest read of this post -- Post #139 --- on another thread should convince you that your comparison between him and Miers is way off base.
I think you missed one.
Tin foil hat Bircher? Naw, more likely a lock and load Chronicle of Culture Groupie. I'll bet you'll have a blast at Halloween staying up late and sharing Bilderberger horror tales with your friends.
Dissent in Kelo v New London
Argues an interpretation of the takings clause of the 5th amendment ("public use")
I fail to see how knocking down Clarence Thomas advances support for Harriet Miers. But that's just me. I'm sure that in your eyes, I'm as big of a "me too" follower as Clarence Thomas is.
There were four dissenters to the U.S. Supreme Court decision upholding the use of affirmative action at the University of Michigan Law School [Barbara Grutter, Petitioner v. Lee Bollinger Et Al], but only one, Justice Clarence Thomas, the high court's only African-American, attracts outright sneering.http://www.sptimes.com/2003/06/29/Columns/Justice_Thomas__disse.shtml
Justice Thomas: "Dope is cool."
Justice Scalia: "Let the cancer patients suffer."It was about what the Constitution's commerce clause permits and, even more abstractly, who decides what the commerce clause permits. To simplify only slightly, Antonin Scalia says: Supreme Court precedent. Clarence Thomas says: the Founders, as best we can interpret their original intent. ...
Two years ago, Thomas (and Scalia and William Rehnquist) dissented from the court's decision to invalidate a Texas law that criminalized sodomy. Thomas explicitly wrote, "If I were a member of the Texas Legislature, I would vote to repeal it." However, since he is a judge and not a legislator, he could find no principled way to use a Constitution that is silent on this issue to strike down the law. No matter. If Thomas were nominated tomorrow for chief justice you can be sure that some liberal activists would immediately issue a news release citing Thomas's "hostility to homosexual rights."
And they will undoubtedly cite previous commerce clause cases -- Thomas joining the majority of the court in striking down the Gun Free School Zones Act and parts of the Violence Against Women Act -- to show Thomas's "hostility to women's rights and gun-free schools."
I hope President Bush nominates Thomas to succeed Rehnquist as chief justice, not just because honoring an originalist would be an important counterweight to the irresistible modern impulse to legislate from the bench but, perhaps more importantly, to expose the idiocy of the attacks on Thomas that will inevitably be results-oriented: hostile toward women, opposed to gun-free schools . . . and pro-marijuana?
Influential!!! LMAO!!
Conservative!!! Can't stop LMAO!!
With all those boogeymen chasing you, be careful not to back yourself into that narrow crack in the political spectrum through which most of the small, irrelevant political particles seem to fall.
You still missed at least one more though.
Great post.
What you have done here is to shine a light upon that ugly no-man's land between hating the courts and wanting the courts to decide one's own way.
Which is it?
You set up a false conundrum.
Follow the words of the Constitution. That's all a Justice has to do.
Lawrence v. Texas would wind up being overturned.
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.