Posted on 07/19/2005 4:44:48 PM PDT by freedrudge
Edited on 07/19/2005 4:52:02 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
President Bush has chosen federal appeals court judge John G. Roberts Jr. as his nominee to the Supreme Court, a senior administration official says...
Only an idiot puts his or her blind faith in a politician. Politicians need to have their feet held to the fire. That's absolutely obligation of conservatives, not worshipping at the alter of a party or politician.
It's absolutely moronic to place one's trust in a politician rather than fighting for what one believes in.
That is really all that the Rove flareup is about,,,,just keep the public confused .
Hardball is such garbage. What would you expect.
To the individual that asserts that Roberts is a constitutionalist, I point to this opinion which has been quoted several times in the threads...
Criminal Law Joined a unanimous opinion ruling that a police officer who searched the trunk of a car without saying that he was looking for evidence of a crime (the standard for constitutionality) still conducted the search legally, because there was a reasonable basis to think contraband was in the trunk, regardless of whether the officer was thinking in those terms. (U.S. v. Brown, 2004)
It seems to me that this opinion is broadly inappropriate, but moreover gives the lie to any notion that he can be expected to uphold the constitution without let or bias.
Whatever his integrity, the frame of reference which he places on his constitutional interpretations is critical, and as such I am dismayed that there does not yet appear to be stronger evidence of a pro-gun stance.
Keeping my fingers crossed...
It's not a very clear sentence....who was wanting to strip the widow ....
But, we might be more appeased, if Bush and the Republicans actually did something to secure the borders and stopped spending money at a faster rate than any administration since the Johnson administration. And, we might be more appeased if we don't see any more incremental versions of the Hillary's health care plan like the Medicare prescription drug plan.
AMEN
Especially since this is the same politician & party leadership that's doing everything they can to force an EU-style open borders policy on us.
apparently the TRPA was-at least going by the wording of the earlier poster.
But, we might be more appeased, if Bush and the Republicans actually did something to secure the borders and stopped spending money at a faster rate than any administration since the Johnson administration. And, we might be more appeased if we don't see any more incremental versions of the Hillary's health care plan like the Medicare prescription drug plan.
I'm tired of saying AMEN, so I'll say BRAVO.
Souter was an aberration ... a stupid choice made on the recommendation of one or two New Hampshire RINO hacks.
Roberts is much more widely known, and everyone who knows him says he is conservative.
Ed Meese knows and likes him, for instance, and Meese was one of the leaders in the opposition to Gonzales. Levin, Hewitt, and all the folks at National Review give him enthusiastic thumbs up.
I don't know that he's another Scalia, but I wouldn't rule out the possibility.
Now, WHY, would he set him up for yet another bruising and have to find someone to replace him, with yet another confirmation battle? DOES ANY OF THAT MAKES SENSE, AND IF SO, WHY ?
We heard this news on the way home from Charleston tonight and the anchor said that he is supported by a great many democrats, but I had no idea Clinton folks had supported him. Brilliant!
In order to do so, we would have to shut down ALL air traffic , as well as all shipping too and build 40 foot high and down below, under ground electrified fences, topped with broken glass and backed by armed guards on a 24 hour basis. That just isn't ever going to happen.
Music to my ears! Ironically, Slate probably intended a derogatory slant.
Roberts is much more widely known, and everyone who knows him says he is conservative.
Ed Meese knows and likes him, for instance, and Meese was one of the leaders in the opposition to Gonzales. Levin, Hewitt, and all the folks at National Review give him enthusiastic thumbs up.
I don't know that he's another Scalia, but I wouldn't rule out the possibility.
I sincerely hope he is genuinely a constructionist. I just hope the people who are praising him aren't doing so on the basis of his writings in cases while he was working for Reagan/Bush. As he himself has said, those aren't necessarily his views. There are public defenders all over the nation who work their tails off to prevent the conviction of someone that they believe is guilty. But they do it simply because it's their job to do it. Roberts' work in cases where his client was the US govt could have been for the same reason-it was simply a job. I hope not.
Oh my goodness gracious! Since you mentioned NARAL I went to their site. Read the two-word heading at the top of the page
http://www.naral.org/
Can you say "irony"?
Bear in mind the legal briefings you file do not necessarily represent your own personal views. Seems like a decent pick, but I'll wait until I see how he actually votes before I start singing praises.
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.