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

To: indianrightwinger

Bush did a great diservice in naming Roberts to replace Renquist.

Roberts was picked to replace O'Conner and he was already going to pass for her seat when Renquist died.

Roberts replacing renquist is wrong on many ends. He is a moderate while renquist was a conservative. O'Conner would have been off the court if he had let Roberts replace her. Her vote is going to be costly on a lot of key cases now. Alito would have been replacing Renquist and the dems couldn't have used the replacing a moderate vote. Also there would have been much more pressure to move the nomination along quicker with only 8 justices leaving the potential for a 4-4 tie. I am so sick of O'Conner's name for both these nominees. He should have got her off the court when he had the chance.


2 posted on 11/01/2005 10:49:56 PM PST by johnmecainrino
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: johnmecainrino

Oh boy, where to start.......

There is NO O'Connor seat. So, everything argument that uses the O'Connor seat as its premise is not strong.

I have no idea where you get the idea that Roberts is a moderate. Any evidence of it?

Roberts was such a superb human being and a legal scholar. He is a perfect fit for the CJ.

And, why in the world would you not want a fight with the DUmmies and the DemocRATS?


4 posted on 11/01/2005 11:18:19 PM PST by indianrightwinger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: johnmecainrino
Her vote is going to be costly on a lot of key cases now.

Well I don't think she will be there for that many to be heard in the short term but there are a couple key issues coming up before the end of the year.

More interesting is how is this going to be done.

Certainly she would follow through and issue her opinion on the cases for which she heard arguments, and she would simply stop attending arguments for new cases after Alito joins the court.

But does that mean there will be a period of time for which we have 10 judges? Could someone object that the Supreme Court accepted the case, and therefore they should be heard by ALL the Judges?

Sometimes these judges issue injunctions, and what-not separate from the whole court. Are there 10 such injunction sources for that period?

What if some other judge shuffles off this mortal coil before O'Conner wanders off to retirement? Do we hold her over?

The court has had as many as 18 (i think) judges in the past, but there would be a lot of potential for mischief.

6 posted on 11/02/2005 12:46:34 AM PST by adamsjas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: johnmecainrino
Protocal calls for filling vacancies before retirements.
12 posted on 11/02/2005 4:08:13 AM PST by mathluv
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: johnmecainrino

All this will be irrelevant in 2 months once Alito is on the bench.

The loss of a conservative vote is equally costly on a lot of key cases.


19 posted on 11/02/2005 9:31:54 AM PST by zendari
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: johnmecainrino
Roberts replacing renquist is wrong on many ends. He is a moderate

Bull.

21 posted on 11/02/2005 9:34:36 AM PST by AmishDude (Amishdude, the one and only.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

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