Skip to comments.
Turley: “There Will Be No One to the Right of Sam Alito on This Court” (Hear, hear!)
Today Show transcript ^
| October 31, 2005
| Jonathon Turley
Posted on 10/31/2005 10:18:38 AM PST by freedomdefender
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100, 101-120, 121-140, 141-142 next last
To: Ol' Sparky
But, how in world can any pro-Miers person not acknowledge that Samuel Alito in an infinitely better choice for Supreme Court than Miers would have been?Yawn. You don't know . . . we don't know . . . any more about Harriet's suitability now than we did before the lynching.
It is a new day. Celebrate it.
101
posted on
10/31/2005 11:44:26 AM PST
by
Racehorse
(Where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.)
To: KMAJ2
My whole point is 'Let the Miers nomination go'. Stop pandering to division and start pulling people together, Alito is going to be a tough battle and we need ALL conservatives unified joining in the fight.Amen.
102
posted on
10/31/2005 11:45:40 AM PST
by
Racehorse
(Where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.)
To: monocle
Which of the 5 originalist interpretations of the 9th Amendment do you prefer (state-law rights, residual rights, individual natural rights, collective rights or federal)? I tend to find the last two the more persuasive. And my comment was directed more to Katie's acknowledgement that Roe was bad law because it isn't based on anything remotely Constitutional. In fact, Planned Parenthood v. Casey was much more grounded in Constitutional principle than the original Roe decision or at least made the attempt to give it Constitutional grounding.
Comment #104 Removed by Moderator
To: MarcusTulliusCicero
My question to you is what specific rights? One of the most basic rights of man is the right to self defense and yet that right is not specified in the first eight Amendments? The five categories you cleverly specified are of no use in delineating specific rights and these categories would run into the same criticism that these categories do not specify privacy, for example, and therefore are not covered thereby.
Again, I ask what specific rights do you consider covered by the Ninth Amendment?
105
posted on
10/31/2005 12:02:52 PM PST
by
monocle
To: KMAJ2
Maybe you should have addressed your comments to MEDIAMOLE who was already starting in on those who were against MEIRS
My comment was to HIM
106
posted on
10/31/2005 12:21:04 PM PST
by
uncbob
To: AmishDude
We won't behave like the Miers opposition.
Oh the Meirs opposition will be supporting Alito so you are opposing him eh
107
posted on
10/31/2005 12:23:17 PM PST
by
uncbob
To: uncbob
[[Maybe you should have addressed your comments to MEDIAMOLE who was already starting in on those who were against MEIRS
My comment was to HIM]]
My comment was appropriately addressed to you. You seem to be willing to continue to provoke the divide, as demonstrated by your post following yours to me.
-------
To: AmishDude
We won't behave like the Miers opposition.
Oh the Meirs opposition will be supporting Alito so you are opposing him eh
-------
You twist AmishDude's words with semantic largesse, where clearly he was indicating support for Alito. We need unity behind the Alito nomination, the Miers debate is over, whichever side anyone was on.
108
posted on
10/31/2005 12:32:46 PM PST
by
KMAJ2
(Freedom not defended is freedom relinquished, liberty not fought for is liberty lost.)
To: Charles Henrickson
Hey, Charles, what's up? I'm having withdrawals from the DUmmie FUnnies, guess P.J. must have been hit by Wilma. It might be time to state another demonstration - no DUFU, no peace!
To: KMAJ2
My comment was appropriately addressed to you. You seem to be willing to continue to provoke the divide, as demonstrated by your post following yours to me.
And he wasn't by bringing up the Meirs oppostion
You sure have selective indignation
110
posted on
10/31/2005 1:03:52 PM PST
by
uncbob
To: KMAJ2
You twist AmishDude's words with semantic largesse, where clearly he was indicating support for Alito.
I was being facious since he ah predicated his statement about being like the Meirs oppsoition
Like I said YOU HAVE SELECTIVE INDIGNATION
It was posters like him who started in on the Meirs oppostion NOT VICE VERSA
111
posted on
10/31/2005 1:07:31 PM PST
by
uncbob
To: freedomdefender
I don't think Turley was quite as harsh in context as this makes him sound.
I had the impression he was eager to discuss the issues and the Court composition with Alito on board.
There is, among many top legal minds, something of a consensus that the Court has grown too predictably liberal and stale. I think Turley would welcome some challenging thoughtful views from Roberts and from Alito.
He also spoke very well of Alito as having impeccable credentials, a consistent philosophy, and being rather quiet during arguments but that when he asks questions, they are quite probing as to the real merits of a case.
Turley is no conservative or originalist. But he's not calling for Alito's head either.
To: Danae
most of the gang of 14 (well, on the GOP side) have already come out in support of Alito, even saying they would support the nuc option if Dems filibuster. I don't think we will have a problem with the RINOs except for one or two maybe this time. I think we may pick up one Dem or so. With Cheney's vote if necessary, he will be confirmed, even with a filibuster.
113
posted on
10/31/2005 1:18:36 PM PST
by
rwfromkansas
(http://www.xanga.com/home.aspx?user=rwfromkansas)
To: Heatseeker
I don't really think the Dems want to start the old 'freak and shriek' routine on the topic of abortion in front of the whole nation. It's not a winner for them except in settings where they are addressing only their base.
What I want to see someone say, when they trot out the argument for a 'living breathing document' which must conform to changing opinion is: Well, look at the past 10 years worth of election data -- opinion has changed, now get out of the way.
To: uncbob
[[Like I said YOU HAVE SELECTIVE INDIGNATION
It was posters like him who started in on the Meirs oppostion NOT VICE VERSA]]
Pot, kettle, black. I recall quite well the Miers opposition attacking those defending, not Miers, but the Constitutional process, i.e. Bushbots, RINOs and Kool-Aid drinkers. The puerile 'they did it first' argument is not borne out by the facts. For you to claim otherwise is disingenuous. Unlike you, I have said let it go.
The fact that some on both sides feel the need to cast aspersions still reveals the angst created by that fight.
115
posted on
10/31/2005 1:32:11 PM PST
by
KMAJ2
(Freedom not defended is freedom relinquished, liberty not fought for is liberty lost.)
To: cynicom
"Senator Frist is already exploring ways on how to surrender to the democrats on this appointment."Your references on this claim, please.
116
posted on
10/31/2005 1:38:41 PM PST
by
Redleg Duke
(9/11 - "WE WILL NEVER FORGET!")
To: MediaMole
Sounds good. The same conservatives who opposed Miers had better get ready to fight like hell for Alito. As a person who opposed Miers, I agree it's time to bring it.
117
posted on
10/31/2005 1:43:15 PM PST
by
gogeo
(Often wrong but seldom in doubt.)
To: puroresu
The Rats have been bluffing all along. I think the hard left will require a battle.
118
posted on
10/31/2005 1:44:34 PM PST
by
gogeo
(Often wrong but seldom in doubt.)
To: PeoplesRepublicOfWashington
If they are italicized, they'll hopefully lean to the right.
To: Brilliant
How's J. P. Steven's health? (No nefarious wish here, just curious)
120
posted on
10/31/2005 1:44:44 PM PST
by
Dionysius
(ACLU is the enemy)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100, 101-120, 121-140, 141-142 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson