[alwaysconservative]

All of a sudden, I'm not so sure that getting Dubya's judicial nominees through the Senate is all that great an idea. After all, two of his daddy's nominees to the SCOTUS voted in favor of affirmative action yesterday. If Dubya's nominees aren't any better than his daddy's, then our courts are in a world of hurt.

Then add to that, Dubya's liberal attacks on the Constitution over the last almost two years (Patriot Act, HSA, Jose Padillia, etc.) and I'm not so sure that I want any more Bush family nominees on the federal bench.

O'Connor, who was a Reagan appointee, was a greater problem than Souter; and you are forgetting that the black justice appointed by Bush I, Thomas, voted against affirmative action on both cases, very decisively and very eloquently.

I also don't understand your statement that Patriot Act or Jose Padilla were "liberal" assaults on the Constitution; in both cases, the government is simply granted police power to protect us from terrorism. I thought it was the leftists who were screaming about Patriot and Padilla.

[NYC Republican]

O'Connor, who was a Reagan appointee, was a greater problem than Souter; and you are forgetting that the black justice appointed by Bush I, Thomas, voted against affirmative action on both cases, very decisively and very eloquently. I also don't understand your statement that Patriot Act or Jose Padilla were "liberal" assaults on the Constitution; in both cases, the government is simply granted police power to protect us from terrorism. I thought it was the leftists who were screaming about Patriot and Padilla.

Great rebuttal. It's always amazing to see how people omit a great deal of facts in attempt to score points by being right.

[Action-America]

I also don't understand your statement that Patriot Act or Jose Padilla were "liberal" assaults on the Constitution; in both cases, the government is simply granted police power to protect us from terrorism.

I use the term "liberal", because in both cases, individual rights have fallen to the all mighty federal government, in direct violation of the original intent of the Constitution.  Although some liberals are professing to be upset about these issues, I have trouble believing that they would be too upset, if klinton was in office.  After all, growing the power of the federal government, beyond the bounds of the Constitution, is and always has been a liberal ideal.

As far as the rest of the SCOTUS judges and district judges are concerned, it seems that we can no longer count on even the so-called conservative judges.  Personally, I think that all judges should be non-lawyers.  Then, if they can't understand the law, the law must be too complicated for common people to understand and the related law should be changed or cases tried under those overly complicated laws could be thrown out.  Such a plan would force Congress to simplify our laws and allow the jury to function in its proper manner - determining both guilt or innocence and whether or not the law should apply to the case at hand.