Posted on 01/15/2006 3:41:36 PM PST by Aussie Dasher
"O'Connor was horribly convoluted and vague where she didn't need to be."
When I was in Law School in 1991, O'C wrote an opinion dealing with intellectual property. Since I was taking a patent/copyright course at the time the Prof had us study it. After 2 classes, he came to the conclusion that it made no sense at all. It didn't. IMHO, she was a token female in waaay over her head.
"It's the next vacancy that will really decide the future of the Court. Let's hope it happens while Bush is still in office and the GOP still controls the Senate."
Rush has an interesting take on this situation. When dems are out of power, they feel helpless and when they are not in control, the game isn't fun anymore.
So, since they can't make serious contributions (in their eyes) they opt out. Many dems will take this view and not run for reelection.
So too with liberal judges. Once they understand they are not the majority and will not be making law any more, the older, less healthy of they may just opt out. Ginsburg is ill, and at least one other is likely to bail in the next 2 years.
This could be fun!
I do too.
Roe v Wade will soon be re-visited and found defectively unconstitutional IF Justice Kennedy can be counted on to ignore European Law.
Thank you GH-NWO Bush for that AND ensuring Bubba Clinton's election with your sham campaign in '92.
Sipping from her cauldrom of eye of newt, bat ears, and spider droppings may finally be catching up with her after all??
She is satan's daughter.
"To this day, Souter has avoided validating either camp." Can anyone name one case of significance in which Souter did not vote with the Ruth Bader Ginsburg wing of the court?
O'Connor is the ultimate example of an affirmative action appointee gone bad, talking waaaay too much to establish how smart she is when it's far too obvious she's in over her head. Thomas, on the other hand, is an affirmative action appointee who has his head on straight--he's unsure if he's up to the level of the other appointees but he's not willing to f up a good thing by yapping stupidly in oral argument or making an ass of himself in writing opinions that are beyond his grasp.
O'Connor always has some sort of stupid 5-point test she's made up on the fly. Or her most egregious idiocy, that "it's in the Constitution 25 more years" line in Grutter. Thomas, when he does have something to add, is stellar in his foundation and flawless in his execution.
God save us from more O'Connors, and God grant us the good fortune that the High Court be made up of humble and talented men like Clarence Thomas. We should be so lucky as to have Justice Alito agree with him 95% of the time.
"Roe v Wade will soon be re-visited and found defectively unconstitutional IF Justice Kennedy can be counted on to ignore European Law."
As long as you're dreaming, I'd like a mint condition Chevy Nomad.
"." Can anyone name one case of significance in which Souter did not vote with the Ruth Bader Ginsburg wing of the court?"
Souter is Ruthie's little weasel boy.....he cozies up to her like a forlorn puppy. When Buzzy goes away the weasel will be weaned from her bat milk.
Warren Burger
Mmmmmmm.... Burger....
While Alito is probably an improvement over many who are already on the court, to include O'Conner, I think he showed far too much deference to precedence, the precious stare decisis, at the Supreme Court level.
If they're killing people, and precedent says it's OK, and even if it's been ruled OK a thousand times or more by previous Supreme Courts, it is still wrong, and such a precedent deserves no credence whatsoever and should be immediately overturned.
Since Kennedy can't be counted on, cancel you order for that Chevy Nomad ;-)
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.