Posted on 04/26/2007 7:35:16 PM PDT by Rick_Michael
In a pointed dissent from decisions overturning death sentences for two Texas inmates, Roberts accused Stevens of engaging in revisionist history.........
Roberts concluded his 16-page dissent on a sarcastic note, at odds with his amiable image. "Still, perhaps there is no reason to be unduly glum," Roberts said, taking direct aim at Stevens. "After all, today the author of a dissent issued in 1988 writes two majority opinions concluding that the views established in that dissent actually represented 'clearly established' federal law at that time. So there is hope yet for the views expressed in this dissent."
"Encouraged by the majority's determination that the future can change the past, I respectfully dissent," he concluded.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
Anyone read the full opinion or dissent on this? Usually I watch Cspan to listen to the court.
We need one more before Bush leaves office. Preferably 2.
This might be a bit off the wall but maybe we should try to get a John Roberts for PRESIDENT boomlet going. Too late for ‘08 most likely. But in 2012 or 2016 he might be a great candidate.
I agree but, first we must nominate somebody that can win.
I don’t know his history. But he has a cushy job now.
How? Congress was lost in 2007.
If two kick the bucket, he will get the chance. The dems may try to block, but it won’t work.
Natural causes, do you duty...
“...maybe we should try to get a John Roberts for PRESIDENT boomlet going.”
There’s the distinct possibility that he would lose. Also, he’s way too important holding his current role.
I’d vote not to mess with success.
BUMP that! The more the merrier, I always say.
As long as the ones who make an exit are from the scumbag liberal activist side....
I won’t shed a tear if Stevens or Ginsburg kick the bucket.
I for one would not lament a Ruth-less Supreme Court.
...especially if it would then Rutlessly attack abortion “rights”.
Rutlessly = Ruthlessly.
PWI.
I'm rooting for Souter, the ultimate betrayer.
Why wouldn't it work? If the dems control the judiciary committee, it seems to me they could block any SC nominee they wanted to block. What am I missing?
Do you really believe that the Dems will let another Bush nominee past them? Even get a hearing or an up or down vote?
The next hearing or hearings if there is another nominee while Bush is still in office will be a series of Democrat party 2008 election campaign & propaganda speeches.
They don’t care if they tie it until they get a Dem president or until they get another 4 years of control of the house and senate.
There will be NO MORE conservative Supreme court judges confirmed for 8 to 10 years. They will just tie it up in continual hearings.
They have nothing to lose because the MSM is tightly on their side. Most of the American public is asleep.
SCOTUS vacancies are front page news; lower court vacancies are not. Now yes, if the vacancy is in July ‘08, Dems might block...I can’t see them blocking in July ‘07 all the way to Jan ‘09 without some major bumbling by the White House.
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.