Posted on 07/18/2005 8:13:56 PM PDT by mysonsfuture
Organizational ties are nice and dandy, but I'll wait to see actual proof of her conservatism.
Please someone help me with this I am getting really uptight.
As I was leaving her chambers one of her clerks who had heard this story made some snide remark about my having given up my seat to my hero Ted Kennedy.
I didn't correct him, and I didn't get the job. I've always wondered if my failure to point out to this clown that the point of my story was that I didn't want to give my seat to to Ted Kennedy or Chris Dodd, but that I did so as a courtesy to the young ladies I was with so that one of them didn't have to give up her seat, cost me a chance to clerk with a Fifth Circut Justice. If she gets throught I will have to wonder if it cost me a chance to work for a future Supreme Court Justice.
I just heard Ann Compton's report on ABC News. She said Specter says he was summoned to the White House tonight regarding the judicial nominee. She speculated, but did not confirm, that a nominee has been selected.
I completely agree. But the SC can do ONLY that, they cannot make abortion illegal and a strict-constructionist would never do it anyway.
I think I'm probably the first to object on this thread but this thread is not the first time I've objected. But hey, we all get four cheeks and as many opinions as we can fit in a lifetime.
Here's a bit more knowledge, helped along by discussions not of R v W, but the Memogate / TANG "scandal".
What is the composition by party of the Texas legislature NOW vs. when R v W happened?
So if there were even restrictions back THEN, maybe there'll be MORE restrictions now. Which would prevent SOME abortions, thereby saving some childrens' lives, which refutes your original point. . .
Think it over, dude.
Cheers!
The simple fact that both are on the 5th circuit should warm all of our hearts. That is the most conservative court, hands down, in the country.
well that and Utah would make 4 states right there....i would bet there would be more...but I do get TF's point
Yeah. It's a forum alright. If everybody was right all the time and people only posted correct info... likely it'd be a seldom-hit forum.
I have no idea where you got that idea.
Totally agree with you.
Even if a dark horse is picked, someone that hasn't been discussed much, people shouldn't jump to conclusions.
Unfortunately, it has always happened a lot here, both in positive and negative directions, depending on the story. But that is the nature of things.
What's the moral? :-}
A stopped clock crock is right twice a day
what sort of court do you guys want is my point?
all this stare decis talk a few weeks ago got me to pondering if a strict constructionist court could turn back the clock.
But you admitted to prior objection.
The majority of threads I've followed, and I read most of these judicial threads, have seen precious little objection to her. Focus was almost exclusively on Gonzales.
Whether the critisism is valid I'll determine as I examine her record, which I admit she is not among the list I have yet. But I find it questionable that so many, unlike you, that didn't have a voiced concern suddenly do.
"I didn't correct him, and I didn't get the job. I've always wondered if my failure to point out to this clown that the point of my story was that I didn't want to give my seat to to Ted Kennedy or Chris Dodd, but that I did so as a courtesy to the young ladies I was with so that one of them didn't have to give up her seat"
Which was the correct thing to do. You should never regret it. If her clerk is that shallow, you didn't miss much of a job.
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.