 |
 |
 |
|
|
 |
||
 |
 |
 |
!
Posted on 08/24/2005 4:17:58 PM PDT by wagglebee
Senator Diane Feinstein today spoke a little about Supreme Court nominees, and what we can expect from the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings.
She also let us in on what issues Liberals in the U.S. consider when they think of the rulings that affected them, and which they cherish the most. Feinstein told those gathered to hear her at a meeting of the L.A. County Bar Association that in her opinion the person chosen to replace Sandra Day O'Connor should be "balanced and Fair," and not come from either extreme.
She then proceeded to give a history lesson to those gathered, adding that the U.S. Constitution is "very specific in laying out how a Supreme Court nominee is chosen."
She said, rather forcefully, "Pursuant to the Advice and Consent clause, the president proposes, and the Senate disposes."
Does that mean she is predisposed to dispose of John Roberts?
She also reminded listeners that the Senate has rejected 27 of the 148 proposed judges to the Supreme Court since the founding of our nation - "almost 20 percent!" she gloated.
Feinstein then continued her history lesson, gladdening the hearts of judicial activists everywhere by extolling the virtues of the Supreme Court's rulings that have shaped "the will and the culture of this nation in ways that are everlasting and profound."
Her examples of things that shaped the will of Americans for the good? The court's defense of civil rights and privacy in the 60s and 70s ... and the court's having struck down the 1997 Religious Freedom Restoration Act, passed by Congress and designed to protect religious groups from unduly burdensome government action.
The senator is also proud of the Supreme Court's accomplishments in acting as a check on executive power. Her example? Perhaps undeserved presidential pardons? Underhanded executive orders? Attempted
The Bush administration's jailing of suspected terrorist Yasser Hamdi, and the High Court's subsequent ruling that "even an enemy combatant should be given a meaningful opportunity" to contest his detention.
Feinstein also lauded the Supreme Courts ability to protect the rights of an individual over the wishes of the government.
And what example did she give for this, you ask? Perhaps a case where someone was fighting for his home, his family, or her privacy? No.
She cited the 1990 case of Eisenberg vs. U.S. where, in a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court struck down a congressional statute that prohibited desecration of the flag of the United States as a violation of free speech.
With the criteria she seems to be employing to approve a nominee - if the above examples are her be-all end-all of Supreme Court virtuosity - it would be a wonder if anyone but Karl Marx got Sen. Feinstein's vote for the Supreme Court.
Except, that was never supposed to be their purpose!
Feinstein then continued her history lesson, gladdening the hearts of judicial activists everywhere by extolling the virtues of the Supreme Court's rulings that have shaped "the will and the culture of this nation in ways that are everlasting and profound.
-----
Yes, the primary weapon of the radical left in America -- defeat America and crush its liberties and freedoms through LIBERAL JUDICIAL ACTIVISM -- so that LIBERALISM will become institutionalized in America.
Plain and simple.
In your dreams, Di Fi !
i think she is saying she will vote against him, not that the senate will reject him
I wonder if Feinstein was of the same mind when Ginsberg was confirmed?
'"balanced and Fair," and not come from either extreme.'
Maybe she'll write Darth Vader Ginsburg a letter for being too 'extreme' on the liberal side?
*DI FI Ping*
Feinstein is the genius who repeatedly insisted on national TV that embryos used in stem cell research were not fertilized.
Can ANY Roman Catholic or Orthodox Jew be considered for the Court?
Not according to Ted Kennedy and Feinstein. (Hint: their religious views are not in line with liberalism; hence,
they fail to pass the litmus test. . . )
Feinstein is the genius who repeatedly insisted on national TV that embryos used in stem cell research were not fertilized.
------
I don't know what it is with these radical leftist women in the Congress -- I have YET to hear one comment of intellectual substance ever come out of one of their mouths ---- other than the normal incoherent liberal diatrible reflective of a sub-60 IQ....even Hitlery has to reach to say something meaningful that can be believed...
| |
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
!
Feinstein is playing in the mud. Even she knows that when the minority party uses the filibuster to prevent a confirmation vote, that is not equal to a rejection of the candidate.
A rejection of a candidate only occurs when the candidate has been given a floor vote for their confirmation. The vote to end debate is not the same as a vote for confirmation.
This is a fact that must be hammered home to the American public. Most Americans probably think a filibuster is some kind of feather duster.
Kennedy claims to be Catholic.
Your kidding me right?
DiFi can go get a yeast infection. Her and Boxer are left wing relics that won't vote for anyone unless they have ripped a fetus from a woman's womb with their bare hands. Her Nay vote is a given.
And so does Kerry, and so does Durbin, and so does Leahy, and a bunch of other RAT baby killers.
Or any black, latino, asian.....
Unless you are lilly white and have too many hair follicles per square inch (women included), you are DOA to all liberals.
...states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but she wants to undermine that, and reiterated that if she had 51 votes, it would be "Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them in."
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.