 |
 |
Posted on 01/24/2010 12:27:29 PM PST by opentalk
And if Stevens steps down before then, we need to force Republicans to not “rubber stamp” any nominee selected by Obama.
Or, a better turn of a phrase, we need to make sure the Republicans return the favor, and “Bork” any Obama nominee.
|
|
This can’t be true. Ann Coulter said Roberts was another Souter!!
The Senate matters to court nominations. The House doesn’t.
Overall, Bush Jr.’s Supreme Court justices are way better than Reagan’s.
Maybe the Constitution is not dead after all.
We need a whole lot more of these “bold conservative” steps! Reversing Roe v Wade for one. And any and all stretches of the commerce clause.
Yes, John Roberts always said being the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme court was just like being a “minor functionary.”
And yes, I believe everything the Los Angeles Times tells me. /give me a break
I don't recall a president so openly criticizing a supreme court ruling. Obama fighting against the checks and balances of power.
I wouldn't stress too much over a Stevens replacement. When Sotomeyor was confirmed it occured to me that she may walk into the Court with so much leftist and sexist baggage the it would make Kennedy run in revulsion to the Conservative side of the Court. This first landmark ruling may mark the beginning of a series of such 5-4 victories thanks to Justice Sotomama. I think that any replacement for Stevens would solidify the dymanic.
I can make the choice quickly and correctly on complicated issues 99.85% of the time by following this logic:
If Barack Obama, Chuck U. Schumer or Nancy Pelosi are against something, I am for it. If they are for it, I am against it.
So easy.
This is great. I live in Massachusetts, and my buddy and I were out in the snow on Tuesday doing what we could to help:
We had agreed Tuesday night to get together last night to pop a champagne cork. After hearing of the Supreme Court decision, I called him and said, a la Chief Brody in Jaws: "We need a bigger bottle!"
I know a lot of people have a lot of issues with some of the things George W. Bush did as President, but his signing of McCain-Feingold was an absolute repudiation of his oath to protect the Constitution. His logic was that he would sign it and leave it up to SCOTUS to judge it unconstitutional.
I appreciate many things he did as President, but that was shameful. He had no business and no right to kick the can down the road and leave it up to the Supreme Court. This ruling was like taking a thorn out of my ideological ass. It grated on me every time I thought of it, which was often.
On the Mark Levin show, they had one of the plaintiffs in the case describing parts of the case examination by the Supreme Court. In one sequence, they had some FEC bureaucrat on the stand being grilled, and the question came up (and I paraphrase here):
JUSTICE GINSBERG: (being a "friendly" justice to the SEC hack): "Can you reiterate your stand again for us on whether the content by the plaintiff (in this case, an anti-Hillary DVD whose release was prohibited during the campaign time frame) would have been equally banned if it were a book instead of a DVD? We have a problem with book banning..." (this was said by Ginsberg to allow the FEC official to explain the FEC standing in a good light)
FEC BUREAUCRAT: (honestly) "Yes. If it were a book, yes, the promotion and release would have been prohibited. But really, even though the criminal law is there, trust me, nobody would have ever been prosecuted in that way."
JUSTICE ROBERTS: (Leaning forward, forehead furrowed): "Madam, we do not put our First Amendment rights at the mercy of FEC bureaucrats!"
WOOHOO! I almost went off the road cheering at that one!
There is a reason liberals are so bent out of shape over this ruling: They understand completely that this weakens the position of the media, which had unlimited resources to support liberal candidates, where conservatives had no such advantage, no recourse.
They know what they lost!
We had extra champagne for THAT one!
Woo hoo!! Way to go Justice Roberts!!
This is from list of Communicst goals-(On Jan. 10, 1963, Congressman Albert S. Herlong Jr. of Florida read a list of 45 Communist goals into the Congressional Record.)
20. Infiltrate the press. Get control of book review assignments, editorial writing, policy-making positions.
21. Gain control of key positions in radio, TV & motion pictures
30. Discredit the American founding fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the "common man."
Several of the court’s more conservative justices reacted with incredulity to a series of answers from a government lawyer about the scope of Congressional authority to limit political speech.
The lawyer, Malcolm L. Stewart, said Congress has the power to ban political books, signs and Internet videos, if they are paid for by corporations and distributed not long before an election.
Overall, Bush had a slightly better situation in the senate than Reagan.
I had no idea Justice Roberts had that in him. I would expect it of Scalia, but Roberts? Of course, I am not a SCOTUS weenie, but this little bit of theatre warmed my heart! (again, my portrayal is not verbatim, I just did this from my memory of the dialog on the Mark Levin Show...)
Remember, the people protested so loudly over his first nomination. Roberts was Bush’s second choice.
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.