Posted on 07/13/2005 3:48:33 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
Edited on 07/13/2005 4:11:42 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
With O'Connor's retirement, Rehnquist's possible retirement this summer, and hints of the possibility that Ginsburg and Stevens may be retiring within his term, President Bush has an historic opportunity to reshape the court. This is the opportunity that we've all been fighting for. Most of us are counting on the president filling these vacancies with solid conservatives who respect and abide by the Constitution and we will be sadly disappointed if the president appoints squishy moderates.
Sadly disappointed? Did I say, sadly disappointed? Hell, we'll be up in arms!
But that's just my opinion. Before we go much further in this discussion, I'd like to get yours. Please answer the following FR poll question, then come back and post your opinion.
Assuming a potential supreme court nominee is qualified in all other respects, which of the following concerns should be the deciding factor:
Acceptable to minority party
Maintain balance of court
Must be moderate
Must be mainstream
Gender/race/ethnicity
Friendship/loyalty
Pro life/marriage
Must be originalist
Other
Pass
originalist(Someone thats sticks to the constitution)
I voted "other" because "originalist" doesn't express my preference of conservative and strict construtionist.
My acid test is RKBA, which falls under "originalist." No one who thinks the Second Amendment is compatible with any form of gun control laws ought to be on that court.
ORIGINALIST!
Must be the President's choice.
Ditto.
Really? Why?
Originalist by all means,,, I do not care about any of the other listings.
Yes I voted originalist too. Now that I've answered the poll could I please have the option to locate it beneath the Breaking News columm? I often read FreeRepublic from my PDA and the polls (that I've already responded too) require way too much scrolling for me to see if there is any Breaking News. Thank you.
We need an originalist. And if Bush attempts to appease the middle on this one and appoint a "Squishy Moderate" as you put, we need to be prepared to vigilantly oppose such a nominee.
Hear Hear. ....or believes the RKBA to be anything other than an individual right.
Originalist, exactly from the mold of Antonin Scalia.
Also voted originalist. Getting more of them on the court is the only way to stop the rampant growth of government. I'm not a one-issue guy and I don't want the nominee to be either. He or she should have an all-around hatred for the unrestrained growth of federal regulatory power.
Pro-life, marriage, property rights, & right to bear arms.
I voted originalist because I don't believe we need additions to or exclusions from the constitution. I want judges who will obey the constitution even when I disagree and won't try to change it when I do agree.
Must be originalist
I love the Constitution and it has taken good care of this country for a good long while. I want to abide by it and preserve it for my grand-children. Beyond being an originalist, I don't care if the person is male, female, black, white, pink or blue. Long live Tony-the-Judge Scalia!!!!!!
Must be originalist. If that happens, everything else will fall nicely into place.
Must be originalist
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.