Posted on 11/04/2006 8:24:29 PM PST by FairOpinion
For weeks, commentators have speculated that significant numbers of conservatives, alienated by over-spending, the Iraq War, and other perceived GOP disappointments, will stay home on Election Day, giving one or both Houses of Congress to Democrats. But for those who care about reforming the Supreme Court, sitting this one out may soon look like a mistake of historic proportions.
For the past several weeks, there has been a rumor circulating among high-level officials in Washington, D.C., that a member of the U.S. Supreme Court has received grave medical news and will announce his or her retirement by year’s end. While such rumors are not unusual in the nation’s capital, this one comes from credible sources. Additionally, a less credible but still noteworthy post last week at the liberal Democratic Underground blog says, “Send your good vibes to Justice Stevens. I just got off the phone with a friend of his family and right now he is very ill and at 86 years old that is not good.”
(Excerpt) Read more at humanevents.com ...
I think it's doing the opposite of what it was intended to do. I think it scared Republicans, so they came out more than ever to make up for the so called "protester Republicans."
Last year the rumor was that he was spotted pricing homes in FLA.
Count me skeptical.
34 years on the bench for the father of judicial activism
John Marshall is a stain on this country's history.
Yes, the wild-eyed Dems -- led by Schumer -- did indeed block Rogers-Brown and Estrada. But keep in mind that those appointments were for Court of Appeals seats, which fall below most Americans' daily radar screens. Being a Supreme Court nominee is a whole different ballgame, like going from the minors to the major league. It draws big, continuous headlines and corresponding attention from the American public.
Trust me, Schumer and Kennedy won't be able to pull the same thing with a Hispanic or African-American female High Court nominee. Bork, while highly qualified, was after all just an older white guy. Mark my word. . .
The other point that seriously needs to be brought up is this: If the Democrats do succeed in becoming the majority in the U.S. House of Representatives, then the strong "immigration reforms" bill created in the House is gone, and President Bush's and the U.S. Senate's "Kennedy-McCain immigration bill" that's loaded with a finite number of favoritism's towards illegals that are either already here or will be here in the future and guest worker programs in the U.S. will end up making it to the President's desk for him to sign. Also, if the D's end up controlling one to both Houses of Congress, then the President's socialistic North American Union which mirrors the socialistic European Union will become a reality!
You may be on to something. This may be the reason Janice Rogers Brown was not nominated last time.
She would be your go-to if the 'Rats took over the Senate; as a black conservative she'd split the Left, or at least embarrass it, the way Justice Thomas did.
On the other hand "the two Ediths" and Judge Luttig remain better choices -- Rodgers Brown has under her belt a case in which she looked the Second Amendment in the eye, in a California gun-control case, and simply walked away. That was when she was in the California court system. She failed to sustain 2A in a case where the right was clearly bound to the State of California by the operation of the 14th Amendment. One is left to surmise that she didn't broach the issue because California, for historical reasons, doesn't have in its constitution an article equivalent to the Second Amendment. There is no personal right of firearms ownership under California law.
This was a criminal case involving a possible conviction, and she walked away from 2A.
Newest poll posted this morning says Corker now has a 12 point lead over JUNIOR...junior says the poll is wrong it does not reflect his internal polling. I look for him to challenge the results no matter what..he is not a graceful loser, after all his House seat was gifted to him and he has never stood for a real election.
I don't have to picture it - I've already seen it.
I work from home and the TV is three feet away. I watched the confirmation hearings of JRB that were televised on CSPAN. Schumer and Durbin among other RATs called her everything but a $3.00 Crack Whore. It was truly disgusting.
But they're utter pigs and don't care who the nominee is. They'd disparage Jesus if he was nominated by Bush.
"The two candidates for replacement are Ginsburg (cancer survivor) and Stevens (age and infirmity)."
I agree that there is a good chance these two will be out soon.
The third justice that needs to step down next year is Justice Scalia, and Bush should allow him to name his own replacement.
Scalia is currently 71. And I don't trust Hillary, Romney Guiliani, or McCain to name his replacement.
Justice Ruth Ginsburg presents another serious prospect for turning the direction of the Court. Born in 1933, Ginsburg is younger than Justice Stevens, but she suffers from poorer health. She was already 60 when President Clinton appointed her in 1993, and she has, by way of her decisions, faithfully applied her champion's contemptuous disregard for the Constitution. Ginsburg's departure under a Republican administration could mean an earth-shaking alteration in the makeup and direction of the Court. ...
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.