Posted on 07/18/2005 8:13:56 PM PDT by mysonsfuture
9th Amendment. Logically, life must exist before any other rights can be exercised. Therefore, it must be protected to allow the option to exercise other said rights.
I would be ecstatic with Garza ...
a) He is very conservative.
b) Since he is Hispanic, probably would mean Gonzales is off the table for the next nomination.
Let Pat get eleted to anything besides sideshow freak and then he can select whomever he pleases.
Then the term Originalst is not applicable. I want judges that do not make law on the bench, do not make social policy on the bench, and that do not meddle in state issues unless there are clear constitutional reasons to do so. I don't want to trade a liberal mommy SC for a conservative daddy USSC both are bad.
Edith Clement is the favorite at tradesports.com, with her "stock" quadrupling over the past week.
Man-o-man... I'm getting quite a kick out of all these "terms of art!" With everybody in the liberal PC world (especially the MSM psychophants) hanging on every little sylabl, noun, verb and vowel for the slightest hint of something verboten... It's genuinely getting insane!!!
How 'bout... A Jurist who won't legislate and overturn the will of the people??? If we get another Earl Warren in there to replace ANY of the next three to go, we'll be just plain screwed!!!
The efforts we've all made to help "W" and the Republicans will have been wasted efforts and those little pissant Dem Senators will have superceded the will of the people in spades!!!
It really is mass online hysteria.
I don't want a Souter as much as the next person, but we have to have some rational discussion here.
If she is nominated, I am sure Bush will not screw up like his father. She is a Fed Society member. I am sure they talked about her philosophy etc. to ensure she would vote with us as much as you can ensure.
Back when the drug war threads were hot and heavy the 9th was always brought up. It was found that there had been only one case EVER decided by the USSC with the 9th as its basis. That was something about sexual relations or something. Even Bork stated that he never knew what the 9th amendment meant or why in the hell it was put there.
Even those who have proven track records often vote the very opposite of what you expect on the court, often unfortunatley more so for us.
The one who used Shar'ia Law to handle womens' restraining order requests? He would be perfect for the International Law trio of Ginsberg, Souter and Kennedy.
Well said and I couldn't agree more. Activists of any stripe should not be on any court and especially not SCOTUS.
But no so well-grounded in physics, to which his "single-bullet" theory attests.
Pray for W and Our Troops
It is an interesting story. Likely it means nothing, unless Jones valued her clerks getting along, which would be a mistake. I would want my clerks to fight. I like listening to stereo rather than mono.
I don't agree with you ... but that's pretty funny.
Exactly the opposite.
If he picks a 'mainstream candidate, his confirmation is assured, and the media will continue to pound Rove.
If he picks a strict constructionist, the media will move on to that battle and drop coverage of Rove until/unless there is an indictment.
SO9
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.