Posted on 02/08/2006 8:05:05 PM PST by bourbon
Link only thanks to the losers at Gannett.
"Steering the Supreme Court to the Right is the most important thing to me, because those 9 Judges have done a huge amount of damage to our Constitution over the past 30 years, and its about time changes to our Constitution is left up to the voters of each State in the normal Amendment Process, than 9 Justices who have drifted far beyond what our Founders intended their powers should be..."
Do you care about PROPERTY RIGHTS? Sandra Day O'Conner..so often mailigned by our own party over abortion, wrote the dissenting opinion for the court that just took all of your property rights away. Have fun..ATLAS HAS SHRUGGED....
More conservative than Pickering?
That's wonderful!
I see he clerked for Rehnquist.
That's quite a reference.
Thanks, bourbon.
"I don't know him."
Well, I'll be...
;o)
Many thanks for your post!
No...DuckFan4ever is right.
Whatever beef you have against Lott,
he has one of the most conservative
voting records in the Senate.
Bumping your tagline!
January 28th, 2004Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger announced today four appointments at the California Resources Agency: Karen Scarborough as undersecretary, Sandra S. Ikuta as deputy secretary and general counsel, Crawford McClain Tuttle as deputy secretary of external affairs, and Melinda Tracy Terry as deputy secretary of legislation.
Ikuta most recently was a partner at the Los Angeles office of O'Melveny & Myers where she has practiced since 1990. As co-chair of the firm's environmental group, she specializes in environmental and natural resources law. She previously served as a law clerk for U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor and Judge Alex Kozinski of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. She earned her law degree from the University of California, Los Angeles and holds a Master of Science from Columbia University School of Journalism. She also has an undergraduate degree from the University of California, Berkeley. Ikuta, 49, is a resident of Los Angeles and a registered Republican.
http://www.schwarzenegger.com/news.asp?id=1448
New nominations to the U.S. Courts of Appeals: Today the White House announced the following two nominations:Sandra Segal Ikuta, of California, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit, vice James R. Browning, retired.
Michael Brunson Wallace, of Mississippi, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Fifth Circuit, vice Charles W. Pickering, Sr., retired.
Additional information about Ms. Ikuta can be accessed here, while Mr. Wallace's law firm bio is here
See also http://www.confirmthem.com/?p=2212#comments for some additional preliminary commentary. I also found, in a google search, a title of Ikuta's -- Sandra Segal Ikuta, Dying at the Right Time: A Critical Legal Theory Approach to Timing-of-Death Issues, 5 ISSUES L. & MED. 3, 3-66 (1989).
"Of course I do, That decision is why we need more Justices like Scalia. The notion that someone's property should be taken for the good of the tax base of a City or County is something right out of the writings of Karl Marx"
well then..i suggest you look more deeply into the whole MISSISSIPI NISSAN take over and KARl..opps i mean Lott's 'stearing committee'......
You'll notice my remarks had to do with Wallace's association with Rehnquist and Clinton's impeachment. I am unaware of Sen Lott's position on issues of eminent domain.
Then Lott's incredibly weak response, in his own defense, after his Strom Thurmond comment was the last straw. Groveling on the BET and NPR Networks is not exactly what is expected of a leader I can follow
I can't argue with one thing that you've said.
However, he is very conservative.
I would expect nothing less than for him to have a conservative aide.
And, that former aide is the subject of this thread...
not Lott.
It's good to see you. ;o)
Abstract: Analyzes the body of law concerned with timing-of-death issues, using a Critical Legal theory approach. Examines how jurists have failed to satisfactorily resolve the issues raised by new medical technologies, and explores some of the reasons for this failure. Discusses the legal distinctions that must be made between suicide and a permissible decision to forgo treatment in order to hasten the moment of death, and between euthanasia and a permissible decision to withhold, terminate, or provide a treatment that will lead to death. Points out that contemporary legal language may be inadequate for a coherent discussion of timing-of-death issues, and for this reason, the distinctions used in timing-of-death laws have no determinate meaning. Also explores the basic framework used by courts to structure their analysis of cases dealing with timing-of-death issues, and examines the inadequacy of this legal framework for guiding doctors' decisionmaking in timing-of-death situations.
Descriptor Terms: DEATH, MEDICAL TREATMENT, LEGAL CONCERNS, COURT CASES.
I wonder if the Wallace nomination isn't a purposeful poke in the eye to the Clintons. The nomination could also be a signal to remove any objection to Kavanaugh, "or else I'll nominate more of the same genus, like Wallace."
The name "Senator Lott" and the words "help out with the impeachment" don't belong in the same sentence.
We need to convince our Republican Senators and Congress Critters to run on Conservative principles and once elected, and then Govern by those same principles. The big difference between us and the Liberals is we can defend our principles and the Liberals have 40 years of advancing the Nanny state and utter failure defending Freedom or advancing it.
Good to see you as well :-)
I couldn't agree with you more!
We need a someone in the mold of Zell Miller.
He would challenge anyone who opposes him to a duel.
Should that happen, I would watch CSPAN 24/7! ;o)
Pat Roberts takes not a single ounce of crap from the Democrats. In fact... When Pat Roberts takes to the Senate Floor, the Democrats NEVER counter his remarks, they simply pursue a different angle :-)
Only the ones that the DEMs "agreed to," albeit under pressure.
After a slew of confirmation votes in May, Frist left the nominations of Myers and Boyle on the table, unaddressed. Myers was out of Committee on March 17, and Boyle on June 16.
Left in Committee at the end of the year (just looking at Circuit Court nominations) were Haynes, Saad and Kavanaugh.
I do fault Frist for not invoking the "Constitutional Option" the very first time the RATS pulled this nonsense on Judicial nominees.
Back in the 108th Congress? I don't think the political momentum was there, at the time. The issue hadn't festered enough. BUt I suspect he might get a rise out of the DEMs, perhaps enough to get them to filibuster, if he'd bring Myers and Boyle up for a vote. Almost certainly would if he can get Specter to move Saad and/or Kavanaugh out of Committee, and to the floor for debate and vote.
Do you think he will?
I sure hope Saad and Kavanaugh would be brought up again. Whether Frist will do so is the 64 thousand dollar question. My guess is no, unless GWB enominates them like he has done in the past with Pryor and Janice Rogers Brown
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.