Posted on 07/18/2005 8:13:56 PM PDT by mysonsfuture
ABC News Radio-10:00 CST-Bush has decided on Supreme Court nominee. Spector called to WH tonight to discuss. Expected to be "mainstream".
The problem is that it is the Left-Stream Media (note that I don't call them "mainstream") that is tossing around the term "mainstream", and they don't use either the common or our definition of the word. To them, Souter is "mainstream".
You're likely being sarcastic or something, but this Mormon would not be happy to see Orin Hatch on the Supreme Court. He's an idiot.
She is against overturning roe she clearly states she is for right of privacy which she said includes roe and the key words she used were settled and reaffirmed.
I know as a circuit court judge she has to follow supreme court precedent but she will clearly on the supreme court vote with the liberal bloc on roe related cases. Scalia, renquist and thomas will still be marginalized with her on the court.
She won't be as bad as Souter might even be slightly better than O'Connor but she is no great conservative in the Scalia mold.
Not horse puckey. It is a meaningless term. The gold standard for conservative courts has been "strict constructionist" for as long as the debate about what constitutes a conservative court. This "origialnist" clap trap is no different than all of the verbal gymnastics that goes nto trying to define the term "conservative" that has been going on in the past few years. From what I can see those that use the term "originalist" want is their very own mirror image of the Warren court. They want ACTIVISTS on the bench and brother we have had enough of that.
I'm not trying to be critical, but there's not a lot of inspiring stuff in there.
For what it's worth, she was highly recommended by the two Louisiana Dems, Landrieu and Breaux.
That's OK. I deserved that.
Well, if the "will of the people" is that a President should be elected to a 3rd term, or that everyone should turn in their guns, I'd prefer a Jurist who would enforce the Constitution as written. If the people feel that strongly about an issue in a way that is conflict with the Constitution, then they have the power to change it via the amendment process provided therein. Else why bother to have a written Constitution.
Just because Specter was "summoned" to the White House doesn't necessarily mean that he was to meet with the President. Remember that Rove wasn't at the dinner.
"Conservative is the mainstream. "
That's what I'm saying - Bush/Rove are setting up the Dems into painting themselves into a corner.
President Bush, Karl Rove and Company have had more than four years to make a Short List.
I'm certain the List has gotten much shorter recently. President Bush is just playing the Dems along and sounding like a "Nice Guy" to them. Until he drops the bomb om them.
Jack.
I don't see where the conservatives will be able to get away with saying she is a conservative she comes right out and says the right to privacy has been redifined by the pro choice rulings and that the law is settled.
She didn't leave any uncertainty.
Now compare that to how John Roberts answered that question and he left a lot of wiggle room.
"Reps need to learn how to fight the war of politics"
I couldn't agree with you more. I hope that my fears don't come true, but .....There is another thread going speculating that the choice is Clement. I am not familiar with her, just heard the name. I'm trying to learn if she is a "moderate/consensus choice" or someone who is considered more of a conservative. Do you know anything about her?
Well, the "search and seizure" clause of the Constitution is in a sense a right to privacy, so her finding a right to privacy does not bother me too much.
The remarks about the right to abortion being settled law do not by any means give me the warm and fuzzies.
However, being the eternal optimist, I think I sense in her tone and wording a hint that she does not agree with the Supreme Court on this.
You must examine the "penumbra" of her statement. :-)
I said basically the same on another thread yesterday. W might as well stick a "mainstream" label on whoever before the MSM tars and feathers them, even if the pick is a conservative. I pray that is the case. This president will have lost me with anything less.
If Landreu is for her she is no good. Landreu smeared Janice Rogers Brown to no end.
For the dems to be ok with her so early on is very telling Harry Reid is probably doing dances right now. They don't have to look like obstructionists fillabustering and they get another O'Conner clone on the court as well.
And spector's staff being happy is the kiss of death.
Agreed. However, you should read "Under the Banner of Heaven," by Jon Krakauer. Yikes, the origins of the LDS are a wee bit suspect and downright wacky.
Hardly true, the Supreme Court overturns itself all that time, more recently than in the past. They just protend not to, when doing so suits their purpose.
That said, the first precedent is the Constitution itself. It's written in plain English, aside from a few obsolete usages, and is understandable by anyone with an eighth grade education, at or the equivalent of one 50 years ago anyway.
Exactly.
I think it is abundantly clear that Judge Clements is no Janice Rogers Brown.
That does not necessarily mean she is not conservative. I think we'll know more about that in the days to come -- if she is the pick.
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.