Posted on 07/01/2005 7:14:03 AM PDT by SueRae
Hearing on Fox News
Ted Olson would be a great nominee--I never thought of him.
Just heard Leon Panetta on Fox News say that the democrats "probably don't have a list of candidates they would like to see"---
LIE OF THE DAY!!!!!!
Lovin' it. I suspected the answer would be no answer.
Thanks again for the education.
Under Michigan law, there are two ways judges are able to sit on the bench. One way is through elections. The other is when the governor appoints the judge and the voters decide to retain them election time. They then run for re-election every x number of years after that. (6 or 8 I believe).
In 2000, we had(and still have) a 4-2-1 majority on the court. Four conservatives, two liberals, and one swing voter. The Four conservatives were Engler judges, and three of them were up for election. The democrats dumped millions of dollars running "Markman, Tayor, and Young! Oh My" ads trying to defeat them all and take over the court, with Corrigan being the only conservative left.
Luckily, they failed to take the court, and they recently wrote their own Eminent Domain decision overturning the infamous Poletown(1981's activist court) decision clearing a good neighborhood away for a GM plant that no longer is running.
This is the number one issue for me. All of my other major issues are affected by judges. I just hope Bush makes the right decision here. I think any of the four conservatives from Michigan's Supreme Court would be excellent - and the libs would have a fit.
Of Bush's decision, he said: "It will be a very personal choice."
The official said the White House has seriously considered a handful of federal judges, including J. Michael Luttig and J. Harvie Wilkinson, of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit based in Richmond, Va.; John Roberts, of the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit; Samuel Alito, of the Philadelphia-based Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit; and Michael McConnell, of the Denver-based Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit.
Sources close to the White House said Luttig, Roberts and Alito have emerged as the leading contenders.
But the official cautioned that all are highly regarded and remain in contention, and that Bush's choice at this point could be like "lightning striking."
More here:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/commentary.html
Thanx....
You were right!
I think the big fight here is going to be over the Democrats being "consulted" about who he nominates.
That was a tad excessive. LOL
Hi, onyx. Just got back home so you know by now...it's true!
What's the background on Corrigan?
I just hope we have a liberal leave this court, either via death or retirement, before 2008.
We need really badly to get one....just one...more conservative justice on the SCOTUS to finally get a conservative majority.
Kennedy isn't reliable and will vote with the libs on the important things.
It's going to be an ugly summer.
Cripes. Dragging out Panetta. I hope we aren't sujected to Lanny Davis.
Listen when DU is wanting the president to "at least" nominate and/or confirm Gonzalez, you know we don't want him.
"Nice try! It's known as a LANDMARK DECISION!"
Yes , but you weren't talking about landmark decisions when you brought up 1973 and there were lots of things going on at that time. Why don't you just say what you mean instead of calling people names? That's a liberal tactic.
Yes, and the Chief Justice is next. Stevens will hang on until he's death.
Was Garza involved in the Emerson case??
"Is there any hope for Ted Nugent?"
Adulterer!
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.