Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: gondramB; Cicero
The point is moot if that justice will not be a strict constructionist/originalist.

Sandra Day O'Connor, whatever her faults-and they were maifold-was at the very least, committed to the concept of federalism.

That should be the de minimus requirement made of all Republican appointees to the federal judiciary at any level.

Do we even know that much about Miers?

I am certain that not only would she have been incapable of authoring the blistering dissent written by O'Connor in Kelo, but have the sneaking suspicion that she would have been on the other side, were she in the place of Sandra Day O'Connor.

Considering the fact that her only enthusiastic backers-aside from members of the Democratic Caucus-seem to be the corporate benefactors of the Bush administration, I find it hard to believe that she is irrevocably opposed to the exploitation of eminent domain.

38 posted on 10/17/2005 4:26:11 PM PDT by Do not dub me shapka broham ("We don't want a Supreme Court justice just like George W. Bush. We can do better.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies ]


To: Do not dub me shapka broham
I find it hard to believe that she is irrevocably opposed to the exploitation of eminent domain.

Likely not. Eminent domain is generally used by the powers that be--politicians, lawyers, and crooked businesses--against the little guy, and she has spent her whole life working for the powers that be. The usual way people like that assuage their consciences is to throw the little guy a few bones, courtesy of the taxpayers, which takes us even further from constitutional justice.

49 posted on 10/17/2005 5:40:21 PM PDT by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson