Posted on 09/17/2005 8:02:31 PM PDT by Dog
"A Souter-like nomination would hurt the R party, encourage a conservative third party and most like hand the White House over the Dem's in 2008."
Truer words were never spoken.
A Supreme Court Chief Justice in the Souter mold will turn Buhs's legacy into garbage and destroy the Republican Party - which is already rent by serious internal divisions.
That is absolutely correct.
Well, I don't. I have never seen such faint praise as this. What a bunch of drama queens! Can they make a bigger show of holding their nose?
I urge everyone to read the whole article. If this is an endorsement, I'd hate to see their thumbs-down.
Grrrrr....
How would we know?
Didn't Souter APPEAR to be a constructionist at the time of his nomination?
While most of us are optimistic about Roberts (including me), much of that optimism is based on hope and faith more than on fact. Facts are sparse at the moment, or they would have been drawn out at the hearings.
Why the Republican Party has to stealth nominate candidates is beyond me. Why not just put a real conservative out there and fight the fight. We have no idea what Robert's stands for. Like someone else said earlier - we have to rely on "faith" since there is nothing to tell us otherwise.
I don't have a good feeling. Hope I am proved wrong.
Well it works. When WP endorses anything I usually run the other way. FAST.
Bush needs no help with this one. He's doing fine on his own...(Ducking to avoid the BushBots)
You are not supposed to believe anything they write whether you agree with it or not.
UNKNOWN??? Where have you been? He is very well known, very conservative and very stable.
I've been right here. He is not a known quantity and to pretend otherwise is the trap. You do not know his position on Roe, 2nd Amendment, Commerce Clause, Church and State, etc. He simply has not written his own opinions or ruled as a judge on those issues. He is a blank slate of personal judicial views and that should worry thoughtful people.. He has caveat"ed" every statement he made on Judicial restraint and the fixed nature of the Constitution. The only encouraging position he has taken was his analogy that judges should be unpires not pitchers or batters but noticably missing is where the judiciary fits when writing the rule book. We will see. I hope his champions are right but BushBots will get to eat their boots if they are wrong and that will be getting off easy. He is clearly smart enough to fence with the Democrats, why not us? It is clear he's smarter than Souter and you all thought you knew where Souter would come down and you were wrong big time.
I simply cannot respond to all the ignorance of the Judiciary and John Glover Roberts, Jr. espoused in your response.
But I should have know this when I saw the word, "BushBots."
While he may be an unknown quantity to YOU, he is not to people who have taken a little time to research him.
I have listened to the Audio recordings of his Supreme Court Arguments.
I have read articles and seen interviews by people who have known and worked with him for almost three decades.
I have read many of his 50 positions as a Federal Appellate Judge on the Fifth Circuit.
I have researched his wife's involvement in conservative causes including "Feminists for Life" of which she was a Board Member and is now legal counsel.
I have looked at his record at Harvard and his advanced study programs in High School.
I read some of the papers released from his time working for the REAGAN and BUSH I administrations.
I have watched the Confirmation hearing three times.
Is this how a "BushBot" operates?
The reason it is ignorant to use the word "BushBot" to describe someone with whom you disagree is because you have no idea what resources I used to come to my conclusion that John Glover Roberts, Jr. will be the best thing to happen to the Supreme Court in a very long time. I would like to add one last thing.
When William Rehnquist was asked a few years ago a series of questions like, "Who is the best practitioner before the Supreme Court" and "Who is the best appellate attorney in the United States," his response was to chuckle and say, "Well, that would certainly have to be Mr. Roberts."
I'm really not interested in his ability to practice before the court. How he will vote on the court is of primary interest. As for your resources, How is it you assume someone who disagrees with you has not used equivalent resources or has not done their own research?. Hey, you are free to your opinion. I hope you are right. If you are not we all will suffer and you are invited back to explain why your perfect sight just didn't work out this time and gee you sure are sorry we will have to deal with him for the next 30 years. If you have done your research as you said you will find no specifics on how he will vote on the subjects I mentioned earlier. I'm not interesting in an ongoing p$ssing match with you. But I am entitled to my opinion and there are too damn many folks in the BushBot camp who would rather insult or call someone ignorant instead of reasoning rationally. Like I said, If the shoe fits. Please....why not quote some of his judicial rulings or public writings (not advocate positions) that support your view. I can't find any that alleviate my concerns. Help reduce my ignorance.......and tell me you didn't support the Souter nomination because your research determined he was a shadow liberal.
I didn't support Souter because I was not involved in Politics when he was nominated -- too young.
How can you believe John Roberts, who has been more thoroughly vetted and probed and invaded then the other 8 justices combined, can be so solidly conservative for so long is going to suddenly become something that Souter was ALL ALONG.
Souter was never a very strong conservative, the Administration believed Sununu when they should have done more of their own research.
Do you think an intellectual powerhouse like John Roberts is going to be swayed by the likes of Ruth Bader-Ginsberg, John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Anthony Kennedy or Steven Breyer? No way.
Also, do you Karl Rove is going to advise the President to nominate someone who is not Conservative?
Last thing.
George W. Bush is a far better President, much more conservative and far more politically savvy than his father. He also has learned from the flaws and failures of his father's Presidency, most especially the Souter nomination.
This is such an easy set up - let Roberts through so the left can oppose the next nominee by comparing her/him to Roberts. Roberts will go down as the toughest act to follow as far as nominees go.
too young...oh my..see ya.
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.