Posted on 08/03/2015 9:39:35 AM PDT by FoxInSocks
The Virginia Democratic Party said Republicans’ rejection of the female justice in favor of Alston, who is African American, is part of a pattern of “outside the mainstream” behavior.
“Given their history of respect and inclusion toward Virginia women, it is tough to think of a reason the party of transvaginal ultrasounds, banning birth control and fighting equal pay for equal work would fire a female justice in favor of a male pick,” party spokeswoman Morgan Finklestein said.
********************************
We see what the “real” issues are here.
First of all, I don't think anyone should be "borked."
Secondly, this doesn't really qualify as "borking." Judge Roush's credentials haven't been called into question with a lot of lies spread through the media. As far as I know, her credentials haven't been called into question at all. The Assembly likes someone else. That's the good-ol'-boy network that we eschew from the GOPe, isn't it?
Third, I might be the only one here who's actually had the opportunity to witness Judge Roush on the bench for over ten years. Maybe not.
I see a lot of people vilifying her simply because she worked in Fairfax County or because she was nominated by McAuliffe -- I already made clear I'm no fan of his. This is the kind of thing I expect and see from liberals.
That's a good one.
Morgan Finklestein is an idiot: sex and race have nothing whatsoever to do with the issue. That statement waters down and works against support of Judge Roush, in my view. One of the problems liberals have is seeing everything in terms of sex or race.
>>It was a recess appointment.<<
Yes, I read that. Still, wouldn’t you think the Governor would have checked first, if for no other reason than to avoid this sort of embarrassment?
That alone makes me think he was trying a gambit to get someone installed who is more liberal than the legislature would select. It appears to be about to fail.
>>As far as I know, her credentials haven’t been called into question at all. The Assembly likes someone else. That’s the good-ol’-boy network that we eschew from the GOPe, isn’t it?<<
Sorry, but you’re way off base with that good-ol’-boy remark. The legislature apparently has the authority to select supreme court justices. The Governor tried to select someone other than their choice.
Judge Roush is unfortunately caught in the middle, but she was put in that position by the Governor, not by the legislature. He should have consulted with them first.
The fact that he didn’t is a huge warning flag, regardless of your personal respect for the way she’s performed in the past. So far, you’ve said absolutely zero about her politics, and politics is what appointments to the supreme court are all about.
Something about counting chickens comes to mind.
Never underestimate the ability of republicans to snap defeat out of the jaws of victory.
woman kicked off the Supreme Court now has no job … will she even look for a job in this Obamanized economy, or just drop out of the labor force?
This is a great example of one-sided, Democrat-favoring journalism.
Notice that the reasoning of the legislators is completely absent aside from a content-free statement from the weasel Howell. If you’re not familiar with Howell, he very often has to be tricked, maneuvered, or outright steamrolled into acting like a Republican by his own caucus.
Where’s the Republican legislators’ reasoning? You will not find out by reading the article.
So she is a personal friend and your ox got gored.
Well, I don't know her political ideology. I don't run in those social circles.
Yes, apparently politics is all that matters in nominations to any court in this country, and that's very unfortunate. That's how we end up with brilliant and principled legal minds like Roberts and Kagan and Sotomayor . A sad reality, maybe, but that doesn't make it right.
Are you living in a cave? Our courts are political and the further up the judicial food chain you go the more evident that becomes.
No, she is not a personal friend. That's fanciful. I don't know how you came up with that notion.
This would have been avoided if McAuliffe had consulted with the Republicans in advance.
Presiding over a famous trial does not in itself say anything about her competency. After all, Judge Ito presided over the O.J. Simpson trial and no one is claiming he was competent.
I considered that. I don't know if that's the normal practice, but yes, it strikes me as a generally courteous thing to do.
Presiding over a famous trial does not in itself say anything about her competency.
I am not basing my opinions on the Malvo trial. That was merely a side note relating to a case most people have heard of.
If the Virginia Constitution calls for the legislature to pick the justices on the state supreme court, that’s the way it is and no one should complain when the legislature picks someone else.
The fact that the judge may not have a job on the bench to return to is her problem; a problem she could have avoided by simply not accepting the position on the state supreme court. Choices have consequences, but I suspect she will get another judge position soon.
>>Well, I don’t know her political ideology. I don’t run in those social circles.<<
Then you shouldn’t be opining on supreme court appointments because politics matters a lot in those particular appointments.
For two reasons: They’re usually for life, or for a very long term. Even where they come up for re-election or reappointment possibly, once on they’re very difficult to remove no matter how they voted on cases.
The second reason (and this will sound biased, but I believe it’s accurate) is that liberal justices vote policy, not law, when major policy issues are before them. They bend the law to their liking, rather than bending the outcome to the law on the books.
The only way to fight that tendency is to try to ensure that conservative justices are appointed whenever possible, for they will read the law. Even then, it’s proven to be a nearly impossible task, for justices tend to drift left, not right, once in office, assuming they drift at all.
So, yes, the judge you like might be a wonderful jurist, but she’s also got political leanings, whatever they might be. And in a supreme court justice those political leanings, if leftist, often override the law. Presumably a Democrat Governor and a GOP legislature would choose different candidates for that reason, as appears to be the case here.
You implied you had intimate knowledge of her career, just figured, you must be close. You seem to have some connection in order for this move to have angered you so much.
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.