Posted on 10/31/2005 3:12:28 AM PST by kcvl
Per Fox News...
I hope he take what's coming...
I agee with you.... you gotta assume though that after 15 years on the court....he's got what he believes pretty well sorted out in his own mind and is ready to express it.
"An angry liberal, is a beatable liberal, on election day."
On every day!!!!!!!!!!!!
This is why so many of us worked hard to make sure that Dubya was elected and re-elected. His legacy may be judged by the war on terror, but his imprint will be felt most on the Supreme Court.
It will reverberate for a generation.
I could not be more pleased with this selection.
Even though it's always been said, "Mama's baby, Daddy's maybe", scientifically it's just not true.
This is what always got me, a man must be involved... the child (I hate to say property vs possession) is rightly half his... we know that.
This is where the fall of personal responsibility comes in... the male should have say in whether his, as well as her child should be aborted.
Ok... commence flaming me.
But hey, it's not like husbands or boyfriends will start suing for their other's getting abortion without their knowledge or against their wishes. It's rare.
When will they start figuring in intent to get pregnant being contingent on abortion? Stupid I know.
Thanks. Even a frontal shot would be workable. Also, would it be possible to substitute a gavel for the gun in Pacino's hand?
Now that he's officially the nominee, this may be a graphic that is used over and over again for years. It has the potential to become a FR classic.
LOL! Yep, I guess we can soon officially drop the cover that we're somehow upset with each other. 2000 years was a long time to wait, but finally the pieces are on place....
...should have been his first pick. Now, let's roll...
Think the Dems and MSM are mad?
JUST A LITO BIT.....I love this guy.
Lyndon B. Johnson ran for Senator from Texas in 1948. His main opponent in the Democratic primary (then a one party state, contested elections occurred in primaries, not the general election) was Coke Stevenson. Johnson won by 87 votes but Stevenson accused him of ballot-rigging. Stevenson obtained an injunction preventing Johnson's name from appearing on the ballot for the general election. Fortas represented Johnson in this long-drawn out dispute. The case was investigated by J. Edgar Hoover and the FBI. Johnson was eventually cleared by Hoover of corruption and was allowed to take his seat in the Senate.
Fortas and Johnson now became close friends. Fortas' legal advice became important during the investigation into the activities of Billie Sol Estes and Bobby Baker.
On 22nd November, 1963, Don B. Reynolds appeared before a secret session of the Senate Rules Committee. Reynolds told B. Everett Jordan and his committee that Johnson had demanded that he provided kickbacks in return for him agreeing to a life insurance policy arranged by him in 1957. This included a $585 Magnavox stereo. Reynolds also had to pay for $1,200 worth of advertising on KTBC, Johnson's television station in Austin. Reynolds had paperwork for this transaction including a delivery note that indicated the stereo had been sent to the home of Johnson.
Reynolds also told of seeing a suitcase full of money which Bobby Baker described as a "$100,000 payoff to Johnson for his role in securing the Fort Worth TFX contract". His testimony came to an end when news arrived that President John F. Kennedy had been assassinated.
As soon as Lyndon B. Johnson became president he contacted B. Everett Jordan to see if there was any chance of stopping this information being published. Jordan replied that he would do what he could but warned Johnson that some members of the committee wanted Reynold's testimony to be released to the public. On 6th December, 1963, Jordan spoke to Johnson on the telephone and said he was doing what he could to suppress the story because " it might spread (to) a place where we don't want it spread."
Fortas, who represented both Lyndon B. Johnson and Bobby Baker, worked behind the scenes in an effort to keep this information from the public. Johnson also arranged for a smear campaign to be organized against Don B. Reynolds. To help him do this J. Edgar Hoover passed to Johnson the FBI file on Reynolds.
On 17th January, 1964, the Senate Rules Committee voted to release to the public Reynolds' secret testimony. Johnson responded by leaking information from Reynolds' FBI file to Drew Pearson and Jack Anderson. On 5th February, 1964, the Washington Post reported that Reynolds had lied about his academic success at West Point. The article also claimed that Reynolds had been a supporter of Joseph McCarthy and had accused business rivals of being secret members of the American Communist Party. It was also revealed that Reynolds had made anti-Semitic remarks while in Berlin in 1953.
A few weeks later the New York Times reported that Lyndon B. Johnson had used information from secret government documents to smear Don B. Reynolds. It also reported that Johnson's officials had been applying pressure on the editors of newspapers not to print information that had been disclosed by Reynolds in front of the Senate Rules Committee.
In 1965 Johnson nominated Fortas as a member of the Supreme Court. During his time on the Court, Fortas continued to advise LBJ on political and legal matters.
In June 1968, Earl Warren retired as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Johnson had no hesitation in appointing Fortas as his replacement. Johnson also appointed another friend from Texas, Homer Thornberry, to replace Fortas. The Senate had doubts about the wisdom of Fortas becoming Chief Justice. It was later discovered that Fortas had lied when he appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee. In October, Fortas asked for his nomination to be withdrawn.
It was also revealed that a convicted financier named Louis Wolfson had agreed to pay Fortas $20,000 per year for the remainder of his life. This arrangement was condemned as ethically improper and Fortas was forced to resign from the Supreme Court in May 1969.
Fortas was unsuccessful in his attempt to rejoin Arnold, Fortas and Porter, the law firm he had helped create. In 1970 he started another law firm.
Abe Fortas died on 5th April, 1982.
My impression of Casey Jr. is that he is an idiot. Can you confirm that? I heard one of his few debates years ago and thought that.
That was more like the water boy dropping the pop-up.
And THAT is the icing on the cake, isn't it? :))))
This, of course, is no longer true, as America is composed of Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists and atheists.
John Marshal was obviously not prescient and his words have no application to today's environment.
Will you be on the Tony Snow thread at 9?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1512494/posts
Reid could well be defeated when he's up for re-election, since Bush took NV, if the GOP can find someone conservative that people there really like. That would be a HUGE NEVER BEFORE DONE blow to the democrats if they lose TWO Minority leaders in a row to re-election defeat. They'd never recover from that in my estimation.
Specter said that in 1990, and I'll be surprised if he supports Alito now.
OUTSTANDING! Just got done watching Bush's announcement of Alito, and also Alito's remarks! FANTASTIC!!! I haven't been this elated since....well, since last week's withdrawal of HM.
President Bush has made a superb choice for SC nominee, and the DemonRATS are having fits. About time! I can't wait for Alito to face down the insipid, stupid remarks of Schumer, Kennedy, Biden, Leahy, and other DimWITTED left-wing lunatics. We need to have this great constitutional battle here and now! I predict that even the RINO's (with possible exceptions of Chafee and Snowe) will back this nomination even if it comes to a showdown over the Constitutional option. As Sen Orrin Hatch proclaimed, "Bring it on". Finally!!! :-)
That would be crushing.
Cboldt: As if we like Ginsberg. Sheesh. It's about time the GOP learns to oppose judicial nominees who indicate a willingness to legislate from the bench. The fact that the GOP didn't do that with Ginsberg is a black eye for the GOP.
Sorry, I missed all the objections to HM that she would legislate from the bench.
My first objection was that her judicial philosophy was unknown and maybe unknowable. My further objections were that she did not appear to be a strict constructionist, based on her own words, and that she is an intellectual middleweight, also based on the way she expressed herself.
I also objected to the pick on the grounds that it represented, at least to many, a failure of President Bush to fulfill a campaign promise to nominate strict constrctionsists. ANd, from that disappointment came a division in the GOP, of some undetermined size. I also objected to the principle of "going stealth" with conservatism. Meekness does not advance a cause.
But the point I was trying to make in our dialog was against the GOP Senate, which has in the past agreed to pass a nominee who they strongly suspected would legislate from the bench, "Ginsberg." I think the past practice of the GOP in that regard is despicable.
One pro-Miers argument was that a strong conservative CANNOT WIN confirmation in the Senate. This argument was advanced by many posters, referring to the gang of 14, and in many cases supplying a list of Senators who would see to it the nomination could not be confirmed.
Did you subsrcribe to that line of argument?
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.