Posted on 07/01/2005 7:14:03 AM PDT by SueRae
Hearing on Fox News
I agree. But according to xs, and I brlieve her, the current rumored choices look GOOD and are up to a fight if necessary.
Who would be Brown's "rabbi" - Feinstein or Boxer?
(It's a Redskin thing, you wouldn't understand)
I hope Bush moves faster...he needs to.
At least.
BTW, I don't think we've been digging enough on our beloved senators (minions), from the dark side.
Pick...shovel, check...lime...more lime...
LOL!
McCain is delusional.
One of many, this one is from GunWeek and the first I found.
it is going to be ugly no matter who is it, the dems prove that every time. that is why the President needs to name the best possible conservative candidate, come what may, rather than waste a fight on someone who is just fair to middling.
Bush will nominate a conservative. It's just a question of whether it will be a solid conservative or a fire-breathing conservative. I'm hoping for the latter. :-)
The Senate will confirm him/her, even if it requires the nuclear option. Graham and DeWine tasted all they wanted of anger from the Republican base after their "Save the Republic" agreement.
If I'm wrong, I'll grovel publicly.
Thank you.
i don't think that a dem is going to shepherd a republican president's judicial nomination, do you ?
"sorry, loaded with nukes and ready to annihilate, lately."
No worries
You all need some new posting material -- that line is getting old about leaving the Republicans you most likely were never a member of -- we waited too long to become the majority to vote in RATs and let them be the majority. No "real" Republican would ever make that statement you just did that it doesn't matter!
Ah. You're in the People's Republic of Davis. My ex graduated from that fine institution. Depending on your major, you're probably not as alone as you think!
DeWine's son lost election because of that deal.
They had better wake up this issue will decide their elections.
IMHO, no. Let the 'Rats and their minions bloviate for now -- outside of political junkies who live for this stuff and have already made up their minds, nobody in the country cares right now. It's July 4 weekend.
Nothing can be done anyway until the President makes his choice. He's not going to be swayed by anyone -- he'll make up his own mind on this. Assuming that his choice is a good one (and I'll be shocked if it isn't), we'll all be ready to Freep the Creeps.
If the President wants to nuke the obstructionists in the Senate (including the seven faithless Republicans), then he should nominate Senator Jeff Sessions. If DeWanker refuses to back Frist on the nucular option to confirm Sessions, then it's open season on traitorous Republican Senators and time to replace DeWanker with Ken Blackwell for the 2006 race.
Democrats will push Judge Judy.
Republicans (if they had any sense) would nominate John Ashcroft.
he's too old.
He has been involved in some cases in the Texas Supreme Court that give the strong impression that he favors Roe vs Wade.
It was one case that caused this controversy. In his opinion on that case, he stated several things...
"…the duty of a judge is to follow the law as written by the Legislature…. Legislative intent is the polestar of statutory construction. Our role as judges requires that we put aside our own personal views of what we might like to see enacted, and instead do our best (my emphasis) to discern what the Legislature actually intended."He also got alot of flack for saying he would support Roe v Wade as AG. Well, duh...since Roe v Wade IS THE LAW, he is only upholding the current law, that is his job. That DOES NOT mean he is pro-abortion. On the contrary, his opinions indicate that these cases troubled him deeply and he threw the ball back at the Legislature to correct the flawed law. The legislature came back the following session and did set a higher standard. Gonzales is a strict constructionist, and proved it in this case."While the ramifications of such a law may be personally troubling to me as a parent, it is my obligation as a judge to impartially apply the laws of this state without imposing my moral view on the decisions of the legislature."
As the Court demonstrates, the Legislature certainly could have written section 33.033(i) to make it harder to bypass a parent’s right to be involved in decisions affecting their daughters. But it did not. Likewise, parts of the statute’s legislative history directly contradict the suggestion that the Legislature intended bypasses to be very rare. Thus, to construe the Parental Notification Act so narrowly as to eliminate bypasses, or to create hurdles that simply are not to be found in the words of the statute, would be an unconscionable act of judicial activism."
"As a judge, I hold the rights of parents to protect and guide their children as one of the most important rights in our society. But I cannot rewrite the statute to make parental rights absolute, or virtually absolute, particularly when, as here, the legislature has elected not to do so."
When he served as a Texas Supreme Court Justice, he ruled on just ten cases involving a state law that requires teens either to notify their parents before having an abortion or establish before a court that they are mature enough to be granted a judicial bypass. In eight of those cases, he ruled against the teens and did so even though the cases involved situations where the teen feared physical abuse from a parent.
He recently called illegal aliens "otherwise law abiding citizens" and suggested that local law enforcement should not be enlisted in upholding our immigration laws.
He said:
Personally, I would worry about a policy that permits someone, a local law enforcement official, to use this authority somehow as a club to harass -- they might be undocumented aliens, but otherwise lawful citizens.Translated: Other than their undocumented status, they have broken no laws. Please...take a reading comprehension course.
He was a board member of a La Raza affiliate organization. La Raza are the ones that have the motto which roughly translates to: For the Race everything; for the rest nothing.
Well at least you learned a lesson from our last conversation and called it an affiliate. However to clarify again as I did to you at the time, he was on the Board of Directors of the Association for the Advancement of Mexican Americans:
The Association for the Advancement of Mexican Americans (AAMA) currently serves over 30,000 men, women, and children through more than 20 different programs. AAMA's mission is to advance the lives of at-risk youth and families through an array of innovative programs that provide education, social services, healthcare and human services, and community development in Texas cities.Hmmm...sounds pretty radical to me < /sarcasm>
Apparently, at least to you, having one of the most successful charter schools in the country and advocacy for the president's No Child Left Behind policies has little redeeming value - especially if that organization is pro-Hispanic.
I also must repeat that while LaRaza claims this as an affiliate, there is no mention of LaRaza at their website and not even a hint of any radical agenda. Many people join groups that are affiliated with other groups, that does not make them a member of the other group nor does it mean they endorse or embrace the other group's ideology. Some people believe that NASA is a Freemason organization and part of the Illuminati. By your logic, since the company I work for is a satellite of another company that worked with NASA during Appollo, I guess that makes me part of the Illumanati. Is it Six Degrees? Or am I really? I'll never tell... ; )
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.