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

Skip to comments.

Not One More Roberts or Alito (Leftist Blowhard Upset)
The Washington Post ^ | 6/28/07 | E.J. Dionne Jr.

Posted on 06/28/2007 7:58:01 PM PDT by LdSentinal

Just say no.

The Senate's Democratic majority -- joined by all Republicans who purport to be moderate -- must tell President Bush that this will be their answer to any controversial nominee to the Supreme Court or the appellate courts.

The Senate should refuse even to hold hearings on Bush's next Supreme Court choice, should a vacancy occur, unless the president reaches agreement with the Senate majority on a mutually acceptable list of nominees.

And no Bush nominee to a lower court deserves any deference now that we learn that U.S. Appeals Court Judge Brett Kavanaugh may have misled the Senate during his confirmation hearings. Kavanaugh claimed he was not involved in administration discussions about setting the rules for the treatment of enemy combatants. The Post reported that he was.

Although a spokeswoman for Kavanaugh insisted that his testimony was "accurate," Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy said, "I don't believe that he was truthful with us."

As for the Supreme Court, we now know that the president's two nominees, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, are exactly what many of us thought they were: activist conservatives intent on leading a judicial counterrevolution. Yesterday's 5 to 4 ruling tossing out two school desegregation plans was another milestone on the court's march to the right.

(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...


TOPICS: Editorial; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: alito; congress; ejdionnejr; govwatch; judiciary; roberts; robertscourt; ruling; scotus; senate; supremecourt; ussenate
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-78 last
To: LdSentinal

In a libs mind (what there is of it), ‘activism is following the Constitution. How dare those judges do that!


61 posted on 06/29/2007 3:25:45 AM PDT by mathluv (Never Forget!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LdSentinal
they were: activist conservatives intent on leading a judicial counterrevolution.

You say that like that is a bad thing.

62 posted on 06/29/2007 3:26:37 AM PDT by Raycpa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kallisti

One thing I really like about the ‘1/2 Hour News Hour’ is each segment on the ACLU.


63 posted on 06/29/2007 3:28:30 AM PDT by mathluv (Never Forget!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: LdSentinal

A blow to the race industry.


64 posted on 06/29/2007 3:44:00 AM PDT by School of Rational Thought (Your home for pithy disquistion)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LdSentinal

I can live with “Not One More Roberts or Alito.” As long as we get a few more like Justice Thomas, or maybe Scalia. But especially Thomas!

Mark


65 posted on 06/29/2007 4:31:36 AM PDT by MarkL (Listen, Strange women lyin' in ponds distributin' swords is no basis for a system of government)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xzins
He should recess appoint a conservative to serve to the end of the Bush term.

I would pay good money to see Bush appoint Ann Coulter to the SCOTUS, if for no other reason, to watch liberals' heads explode! Plus, we'd have the most amusing judicial decisions to read in history!

Mark

66 posted on 06/29/2007 4:36:35 AM PDT by MarkL (Listen, Strange women lyin' in ponds distributin' swords is no basis for a system of government)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Intolerant in NJ

Bush could just leave the SCOTUS vacancy open, thus creating a 5-3 majority. Especially viable if a TRUE conservative is likely to be elected in ‘08.


67 posted on 06/29/2007 5:51:05 AM PDT by pangaea6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: abigailsmybaby

But he only uses one sheet.


68 posted on 06/29/2007 7:39:22 AM PDT by thulldud ("Para inglés, oprima el dos.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Cicero
Sounds like E.J. Dionne Jr is a little upset

Hey EJDJ, whatever happened to examining QUALIFICATIONS and not ideology? Why don't you just get it overwith and play the race card now?

69 posted on 06/29/2007 7:47:20 AM PDT by subterfuge (Today, Tolerance =greatest virtue;Hypocrisy=worst character defect; Discrimination =worst atrocity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: LdSentinal
activist conservatives intent on leading a judicial counterrevolution

So then they are admitting there was a liberal judicial revolution.
70 posted on 06/29/2007 8:26:42 AM PDT by Norman Bates
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Norman Bates
So then they are admitting there was a liberal judicial revolution.

They are a pack of liars and lawless thieves who have no remorse, no shame and no credibility.

This is another example of how liberals lied (and lie) about everything and depend upon the amnesia and political fatigue of the American people.

The warped mind E.J. Dionne once again reveals a disgusting lack of character.

71 posted on 06/29/2007 10:27:32 AM PDT by OriginalIntent (Undo the ACLU revision of the Constitution. If you agree with the ACLU revisions, you are a liberal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator

That looks just like EJ Dionne.


72 posted on 06/29/2007 10:40:36 AM PDT by ohioman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: thulldud

LOL Maybe he cuts that one page into quarters.


73 posted on 06/29/2007 12:34:05 PM PDT by abigailsmybaby (I was born with nothing. So far I have most of it left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: LdSentinal

E.J. needs a box of Depends stat!


74 posted on 06/29/2007 1:42:14 PM PDT by neverdem (Call talk radio. We need a Constitutional Amendment for Congressional term limits. Let's Roll!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LdSentinal

Ginsberg is controversial because she worked for the ACLU, lets get rid of that cruddy old hag!


75 posted on 06/29/2007 1:44:36 PM PDT by rbosque ("To educate a person in mind and not in morals is to educate a menace to society." - Teddy Roosevelt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LdSentinal

Mr. Dionne might be interested to read this passage from Federalist No. 66:

It will be the office of the President to NOMINATE, and, with the advice and consent of the Senate, to APPOINT. There will, of course, be no exertion of CHOICE on the part of the Senate. They may defeat one choice of the Executive, and oblige him to make another; but they cannot themselves CHOOSE, they can only ratify or reject the choice of the President. They might even entertain a preference to some other person, at the very moment they were assenting to the one proposed, because there might be no positive ground of opposition to him; and they could not be sure, if they withheld their assent, that the subsequent nomination would fall upon their own favorite, or upon any other person in their estimation more meritorious than the one rejected. Thus it could hardly happen, that the majority of the Senate would feel any other complacency towards the object of an appointment than such as the appearances of merit might inspire, and the proofs of the want of it destroy.


76 posted on 06/29/2007 1:53:43 PM PDT by RWR8189 (Fred Thompson for President)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LdSentinal
The Senate should refuse even to hold hearings on Bush's next Supreme Court choice, should a vacancy occur, unless the president reaches agreement with the Senate majority on a mutually acceptable list of nominees.

EJ Dionne is one of those libs who honestly believes that nothing can ever occur without a liberal stamp of approval.

Seeing him on TV, I have to admit, is really odd--it's funny when someone both lisps AND whines at the same time.

77 posted on 06/30/2007 1:14:56 AM PDT by Darkwolf377 (Bostonian, atheist, prolifer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LdSentinal
activist conservatives intent on leading a judicial counterrevolution.

So liberals don't like revolutions (counter or otherwise)? You learn something new ever' day...

78 posted on 06/30/2007 1:16:54 AM PDT by Darkwolf377 (Bostonian, atheist, prolifer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-78 last

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.

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