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

To: pogo101

“But a loss is still a loss. For us, for the Supreme Court and for the next 30+ years of the tenure of those Justices (appointed by HillObama).”

Why would think Hillobama’s appointments would be worse than McCain’s?


136 posted on 01/29/2008 10:27:47 PM PST by Checkers (I'd say John McCain is a Dick Nixon, but Nixon didn't hate Republicans.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies ]


To: Checkers

Any good appointments will not get past the Democrat Senate and it will be a Democrat Senate. Unfortunately, a Republican president will feel it necessary to fill seats when it would be better to leave vacated seats empty rather than put 3rd choice Souters in just to fill the seats. There is no Constitutional requirement for any particular number of USSC justices. There could be 2 or there could be 1000. 9 is not a magic number.


150 posted on 01/30/2008 12:35:45 AM PST by arthurus (Better to fight them OVER THERE than to have to fight them OVER HERE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies ]

To: Checkers

IMO, that’s just being silly, and I say that even though I’m seething at McCain right now.

McCain would appoint O’Connors, Kennedys and Souters. (Which is not good.)

HillObama would appoint Brennans, Marshalls, Douglases and younger versions of Ginsburg. (Which would be catastrophic.)


158 posted on 01/30/2008 6:16:46 AM PST by pogo101
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies ]

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