Posted on 10/04/2005 12:05:25 PM PDT by gpapa
I provided the link, because the thread title was about her pastor. So I thought some insight might be helpful. But I wouldn't want to get in the way of your "we don't know anything about her" riff.
That word best means something different to lots of different people.... How you define best may be different than how I define best.
I don't care if the nominee is the best nominee or not. I just want one that will decide cases the way I think they should be decided :)
Look, I sympathize. The world is not what we'd like.
The RINOs exist.
The goal has to be to nominate the rightward most candidate who is confirmable. Both criteria are equally important.
This stealth candidate is heading towards confirmation and she is more conservative than O'Connor. The court moves rightward as a result.
An enormous victory for a brilliant team.
What is her view of the power of the judiciary? Does she accept the modern fallacy that case law is supreme? What is her judicial philosophy?
church attended should not come into the discussion. of course, her attendance of an evangelical church with a prolife pastor gives christian conservatives heart and leftie libs great pause.
jay seculow of the center for law and justice has issued an online statement of confidence in her proffessional and conservative values. he has worked with her closely on several cases where aclj has filed an amicus brief or done research for a case.
vaudine
It may be moving slow...but it's moving.
Yes. As I said in my prior post, Rehnquist was a SCOTUS law clerk. Being a clerk is like being an apprentice to the SCOTUS--and beyond. The clerks often write the entire opinions for the justices.
Prior to his appointment, Thomas was already known as a scholar of constitutional law.
You know.... when this is all over.... all said and done.... she'll probably end up being more conservative than Roberts. He's probably going to end up being the Sutor. I've learned over my years the the people you really can't trust... are the ones that are smarter than everybody else. And he's definitely smarter than everybody else he comes into contact with.
I believe gays and lesbians should have the same civil rights as me but I do not agree same sex marriage to be a civil right.
Many of the people claiming that Miers is pro-gay are using great latitude in their assumptions based on small tidbits of information.
Possible.
"The Washington Office of the Presbyterian Church (USA) is using the home page of its Web site to summon women to join a political march in Washington, D.C., to oppose any restrictions on abortion."
http://www.layman.org/layman/news/2004-news/washington-office-promotes-march.htm
(From the United Methodist web site) "Therefore, to protect the health of women, Women’s Division directors—along with the General Board of Church and Society -- voted to participate in the April 2004 march: “Save Women’s Lives: March for Freedom of Choice.” Directors do not want the government to determine what is in a woman’s best interest."
http://gbgm-umc.org/umw/statements/march4choice.cfm
Most of the other mainline groups are also overtly or tacitly supporting abortion.
I think people are just mad that Bush picked two people in a row with little experience as a judge. All that crap about people wanting a non-judge picked was claptrap aimed at sounding egalitarian. They really just want decades and decades and decades of being on the bench. End. Of. Story.
You may be right, I don't know for certain what was on her mind when she wrote these things. My quoted link was to Time Magazine, however -- not to Drudge Report.
Yes, I suppose you are right... there is always hope.
The Dems already fundraise from everything Bush ever says or does anyway. I would rather a conservative judge go to the Senate and not get enough votes than pick a moderate right off the bat. Its not like we lose anything by not getting enough votes.
Quite possibly.
John G. Roberts, Bush's first nominee to the Supreme Court, surprised many when he endorsed a Constitutional "right to privacy" during his Senate confirmation hearings.
Although the term "right to privacy" does not appear in the Constitution, Supreme Court judges created one in the case of Griswold v. Connecticut (1965). The Court later used Griswold's "right to privacy" to legalize the crime of abortion in Roe v. Wade (1973).
Roberts believes in Constitutional "Right to Privacy":
Lest there be any doubt that he was endorsing the same "right to privacy" that federal judges created in Griswold, Roberts clarified his view in the following exchange with Wisconsin Senator Herbert Kohl:
ROBERTS: I agree with the Griswold court's conclusion that marital privacy extends to contraception and availability of that. The court, since Griswold, has grounded the privacy right discussed in that case in the liberty interest protected under the due process clause.
That is the approach that the court has taken in subsequent cases, rather than in the (inaudible) and emanations that were discussed in Justice Douglas' opinion.
And that view of the result is, I think, consistent with the subsequent development of the law which has focused on the due process clause and liberty, rather than Justice Douglas' approach.
KOHL: Well, I'm delighted to hear you say that because, as you know, many, many constitutional scholars believe that once you accept the reasoning of Griswold and find that the Constitution does contain a right to privacy and a right to contraception, that you've essentially accepted -- scholars have said this -- essentially accepted the basis for the court's reasoning and decision on Roe, that a woman has a constitutionally protected right to choose.
In Griswold, the Court used the "right to privacy" to create a constitutional right to contraceptives. Senator Kohl is correct in noting that the reasoning used in Griswold led directly to the Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade, that the "right to privacy" also includes a right to abortion.
John Kerry is to stupid to know about that part of the church, and teddie is to drunk to even know that he is church.
Believe it or not, some even send tithes/money to the so-called organization known as "Planned Parenthood".
Thank you, great link.
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.