[mosquitobite]

I hope you realize you do sound exactly like the party hacks behind Clinton... supporting party over principle.

anyways, since Google takes, oh, all of 5 seconds, here you go:

I don't know how to make it a hyperlink, so if you can BEAR to copy & paste here you go. If not, it will be here for others willing to see that Bush has not been 100% in his judicial appointments. (oh and BTW, it's been reported that Clifton gave $8K to Bush's campaign... just keep that in mind as you read some of these RIDICULOUS decisions...)

http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=13520

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3985/is_200306/ai_n9296332

In the 9th circuit, Judge Richard Clifton determined the common denominator to a decision is that the robber knowingly made one or more victims at the scene of the robbery aware that he had a gun, real or not. The court cited the Supreme Court's interpretation in Bailey that the term "use" requires evidence sufficient to show an "active employment" of the firearm, something more than mere possession. "If the gun is not disclosed or mentioned by the offender, it is not actively employed, and it is not used," Clifton wrote.

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1090180364625

"The interests furthered by the federal DNA Act are undeniably compelling. By establishing a means of identification that can be used to link conditional releasees to crimes committed while they are at large, compulsory DNA profiling serves society's 'overwhelming interest,'" wrote 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Diarmuid O'Scannlain for the plurality. He was joined by Chief Judge Mary Schroeder and Judges Barry Silverman, Richard Clifton and Consuelo Callahan. Judge Ronald Gould wrote a separate concurrence.

Shall I go on?

[dakine]

Nah, I believe he/she thinks you misspelled "Clinton", too rich!

[mosquitobite]

What the crowd chanting "Bush's nominees have been good picks so far, and Miers helped vet them" fail to realize is this:

A BAD judge for US, is a GOOD judge for them (Dems), no? Therefore do you really think the MSM is going to report about these "bad" judges Bush has let through? No. Those are the judges they want MORE of.

We have to do our OWN research, not rely on some White House talking point memo. How many have been good? How many are crappy? Let's put a finger on it so we have a better idea of just what we're getting!

[sinkspur]

I'm not sure of your point. If you're saying that some judges appointed by Bush wrote opinions you don't agree with, so what? Scalia agreed with the CFR law. Robert Bork thinks the 2nd amendment is an anachronism.

I don't agree with my wife about everything she says, or does.