Posted on 09/13/2005 9:20:39 AM PDT by Ol' Sparky
Read that and tell me that this woman is not brilliant.
Since being stupid is not a crime, No.
Crawl back under the bed then and leave matters to those who AREN'T afraid. I'm sure we won't miss you ONE bit.
I don't particularly like judges who think stirring up controversies is good. I prefer the quiet, scholarly expert types as judges. Nor do I see any reason to presume that Brown is more of a Constructionist than Roberts.
That being said I would support Brown anyway if nominated.
I like Farah. :o)
I didn't mean to imply that it would be Bush's fault.
Simply trying to point out that my inclination is that Roberts is not going to amount to a Scalia or Thomas as we were told.
There was nothing assinine about my comment. Having a bigger mouth might be preferable in a Cheerleader but not necessarily in a Justice.
In my opinion, I think we are at a point now where the Constitution is so regularly ignored that I'd prefer someone who can articulate constitutional principles as eloquently as Brown can. I think that Thomas is the closest we have to this now and that Brown will blow even him out of the water.
Nor do I see any reason to presume that Brown is more of a Constructionist than Roberts.
I read something on FR this morning that suggested that Roberts may not be a strict constructionalist, but several bits of the article were quickly picked apart by freepers so I'll continue to give him the benefit of the doubt on that one.
That being said I would support Brown anyway if nominated.
Likewise, I'm fully in support of Roberts. As I mentioned to Howlin earlier, I've been impressed with his intellect from the little I've seen of his confirmation hearings. I feel that at worst, he'll be another Rehnquist. Obviously, I'd prefer a Thomas or Scalia, but compared to whom Clinton would have nominated had Renquist died back then, I'm not going to complain.
Thomas is as far as one can get for flamboyent over the top remarks. He rarely even speaks during hearings. He meets my ideal as a judge.
I know if I was to have to stand before a judge in court I would not want him/her to go off on some personal vendetta no matter how much I might agree with it.
Around 1998 was my last time. Fortunately, I wised up long before Y2K.
Well part of the education would be to point out that on such issues like abortion, Scalia-types would not be activist as they would not be imposing a solution. They would do as they should, which is to recognize that its not an issue that was ever intended to be protected from the normal and proper democratic process. Thus they would leave the matter where it belongs -- to the states and the people. I believe that one of the reasons support for Roe remains strong in polls is ignorance on the part of the public about what overturning it would do. Thanks to deliberate misinformation from the Left and the media, I'll bet that a high percentage of Americans think that overturning Roe would itself make abortion illegal, when in fact it would simply return it to democratic channels.
Doing polls as you suggest might be a good idea, but the GOP must be out there shaping public opinion with the truth. One of the Left's great public relations successes is how it has created this false image of the 'religious Right' wanting to impose its values on the nation. But the truth is that insofar as the Rights agenda is implemented, they would have to go through the pesky process of actually winning elections, and winning legislative votes, and ballot initiatives. The GOP should be prepared to better point this out. For example, which is the greater imposition of values -- when a handful of judges decide to radically alter the definition of marriage, or when overwhelming majorities (that include much more than evangelican whites, such as majorities of blacks and latinos and moderates) vote to preserve the traditional one? This is the type of question that should become part of the talking points, as well as others such as, "do you agree that the Establishment Clause forbids a nativity scene outside your local city hall, or that it forbids prayer before your local highschool football game?"
Your comment points to an even larger issue and that is the lack of conservative voices in the media and opinion makers. Why do wealthy conservatives not purchase a network or a movie studio or start universities? How can we root out the Leftists who have insinuated themselves into the leadership of the foundations (including those established by conservatives), universities and other important institutions.
We must start every series of downs on our own one yard line and fight through penalizing falsehoods. This must change.
A week after the election he started prattling about open borders and amnesty. A week AFTER, not a week before. Why? It was calculated -- he knew perfectly well that he'd lose if he did it earlier.
So if he's sneaky and deceptive, why does it surprise you that we're being "Soutered" again in the Supreme Court nominations? That's exactly what you'd expect.
I've voted for every Repulican presidential candidate since I was old enough to vote. But GWB was the only one that I ever fasted and prayed for. And now I'm sorry I did.
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.