It means that you might support an abortion if it is required to save a mother during childbirth, or that you might support abortion in the case of rape.
Posted on 07/01/2005 8:01:28 AM PDT by cll
Per Foxnews.com banner
I'm wonderig if we can get Souter on property tax evasion, plus O'Connor's decade late retirement, we can get the case back into the SCOTUS to reconsider. The SOCTUS can strike down it's own decisions, as different Justices interpret Constitutional law...and hopefully, we'll be shortly getting Justices who strictly adhere to the CONSTITUTION, without using German or Swiss legal precedent to rewrite what they think is an "evolving document"
Bush is NOT going to nominate Gonzales -- if he had plans for that, he would not have put him in as Attorney General.
Will some of you stop this doom and gloom and think positively for a change.
Pres Bush is not going to take Gonzales away from being the Attorney General -- too important of job. There are plenty of candidates but you doom and gloomers like to concentrate on someone you know he won't nominate as it is better to throw it in to stir the pot.
Get some positive thinking going because President Bush has not nominated to the bench any moderates -- why do you all think the RATs fought so hard to defeat him from being elected and are pulling that crap in the Senate -- they know he didn't approve of his Father picking Souter and who do you think gave Sununu the word he was out after that helicopter fiasco? George W. Bush is who. The RATs know he believes in strict constitutional ruling which they do not want. He has a distate for activist judges and their rulings and that is not going to change but then some of you stirring the pot already knew that!
Whatever happened to the word "optimist" around here?
Well, the senile old bat DID do her magnum opus by helping to reinterpret the definition of "public use" part of the Fifth Amendment : "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation", after destroying the Eleventh Amendment : "The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State" last year.
Her work is done.
Souter pulled a real switch after he was named. Still wonder why?
President Bush is NOT going to nominate a pro-abortion person -- it is not going to happen. Why are you folks to quick to be taken in that he is going to nominate Gonzales when he is already Attorney General and has only been there for a short time?
People are stirring the pot with Gonzales. This is just like in 2000 I wrote a long vanity on why Pres Bush was NOT going to make a pro-abortion person his VP. I was right then and I am right now -- he will not name a pro-abortion person to the SCOTUS. Who was the President who signed the bill immediately to end Partial Birth Abortion when it hit his desk and who is against using fetal stem cells in research? George W. Bush is who and people need to remember his stance in favor of pro-life -- there is no compromise on Supreme Court appointees for this President.
Bush may indeed nominate Gonzalez. If not Alberto, he will nominate some other conservative minority. The odds of a white conservative judge being confirmed is low. Bush doesn't have the balls to nominate the best judge. I see a lot of you saying this will be the "final straw" if Bush nominates Gonzalez. I have seen that written countless times over the past couple of years. My final straw was the "vigilant" comment. Count on republicans to blow another major opportunity here. They will cave as they do on everything else.
It means that you might support an abortion if it is required to save a mother during childbirth, or that you might support abortion in the case of rape.
Can you show me which Republicans caved to the Dems' demands for Rove's resignation (as if he could) and for a Rove apology after his "Liberals wanted to give terrorists therapy" slam?
Souter, Kennedy and others have found their way onto the court only to put forth decisions like Kelo vs. New London (eminent domain).
Define the views of an 'actual' conservative, as you see them, bill.
And be specific please. I'm curious as to what you mean by that definition.
A little truth about this consistently pro-Life President (mixed in with the pot stirring going on) is refreshing. :o)
If Bush's nominee is filibustered, he could name Bork as a temporary "recess apointment." But there is another person who should be considered:On the very day that Reagan named O'Connor, the Wall Street Journal published a convincing letter to the editor making the case that an economist should be named to the Supreme Court. I read it, and I thought "Great idea! And I know who would be perfect for it - Thomas Sowell!" Then I read the byline of the letter to the editor - and it was by Thomas Sowell!
- a person who is renowned for lucid analysis
- a person who Ted Kennedy is contemptuous of
- a person who is a friend of Clarence Thomas
- a person who applied for the very seat on the bench that Reagan named O'Connor to.
When Kennedy was grilling Clarence Thomas he tried to associate Thomas with Sowell as a way of discrediting Thomas in the eyes of the Democratic majority on the Judiciary Committee of the time. Thomas didn't comment, and was confirmed - but he would have loved to have spoken in defense of Sowell!.
Just in passing mind you..
11:16 A.M. EDTTHE PRESIDENT: Good morning. A short time ago I had a warm conversation with Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who has decided to retire from the Supreme Court of the United States. America is proud of Justice O'Connor's distinguished service and I'm proud to know her. Today, she has the gratitude of her fellow citizens, and she and John and their family have our respect and good wishes.
Sandra Day O'Connor joined the nation's highest court in 1981 as the first woman ever appointed to that position. Throughout her tenure she has been a discerning and conscientious judge, and a public servant of complete integrity. Justice O'Connor's great intellect, wisdom and personal decency have won her the esteem of her colleagues and our country.
Under the Constitution, I am responsible for nominating a successor to Justice O'Connor. I take this responsibility seriously. I will be deliberate and thorough in this process. I have directed my staff, in cooperation with the Department of Justice, to compile information and recommend for my review potential nominees who meet a high standard of legal ability, judgment and integrity and who will faithfully interpret the Constitution and laws of our country.
As well, I will continue to consult, as will my advisors, with members of the United States Senate. The nation deserves, and I will select, a Supreme Court Justice that Americans can be proud of. The nation also deserves a dignified process of confirmation in the United States Senate, characterized by fair treatment, a fair hearing and a fair vote. I will choose a nominee in a timely manner so that the hearing and the vote can be completed before the new Supreme Court term begins.
Today, however, is a day to honor the contributions of a fine citizen and a great patriot. Many years ago, Sandra Day O'Connor chose the path of public service, and she served with distinction as a legislator and a judge in Arizona before joining the Supreme Court. When President Ronald Reagan appointed Justice O'Connor 24 years ago, Americans had high expectations of her -- and she has surpassed those expectations in the performance of her duties.
This great lady, born in El Paso, Texas, rose above the obstacles of an earlier time and became one of the most admired Americans of our time. She leaves an outstanding record of service to the United States and our nation is deeply grateful.
Thank you.
END 11:18 A.M. EDT
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/07/20050701-1.html
Sowell is 75 years old though.
Gonzalez is a former Democrat who has called Roe v Wade "settled law"... given the history of SCOTUS, where conservatives stay conservative and 'moderates' end up being raging liberals and they 'mature' on the Supreme Court, you can expect the moderate Gonzalez to be no better than OConnor, with a slight chance of being a Souter.
why risk it?
Conservatives deserve a reliable conservative voice on the bench.
"I would like to see the Dems reaction if GWB took Soiled Harry Reid's advice and appointed a current member of the Senate. They probably don't think he'd do it. Sen Mike Crapo is about as conservative as you can get, and he is 100% pro life. Plus another Republican would be appointed to fill his seat. The Dems would have fits but Harry is on record as saying Crapo is qualified and he would get through the Senate!"
The BEST Senator to nominate would be Sen John Cornyn.
He was on the Texas Supreme Court, was State AG, has good conservative credentials, etc.
What I'd really love though is State AG Greg Abbot to get nominated (come to think of it, I'd put him in the place to be Texas' US Senator if Cornyn gets 'promoted')
I'll help you keep optimism alive. And let's augment our optimism with some mighty prayers and a few phone calls. It is time for conservative GWB to emerge and act.
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.