Posted on 11/08/2007 11:34:57 AM PST by ChicagoConservative27
Sean should rename his radio show “Hannity & Guiliani & Toe Sucker & Beckel”.
Yes
If it’s Okay to torture our soldiers with waterboarding it’s Okay to use on our enemy.
The Story of the First King’s Four Gods. Currently airing on MBC in South Korea. Consistently getting 30% market share. I can't wait for it to come out on DVD!
It shocked me that Pat “I can channel God himself” Robertson endorsed Roody Doody as well.
But being endorsed by a Loon isn’t saying much.
... Let's just say those are an endangered species among Manhattan judges rarely seen outside picture books.
The list of appointee's from which he could choose was overwhelmingly liberal democrats with nare a constitutionalist among 'em. That's the way it works in liberal NYC. A committee provides the list from which the appointment are made.
Sean should rename his show “The Stop Hillary Express” oh wait...
He should keep doing it and PLEASE lets not hear about rudi every 10 minutes.....
He said he would use no litmus test as far as Roe v Wade is concerned, now how can you appoint a strict constructionist judge if you won’t do that? It’s pure double talk!
Pat Robertson is a marginal plus ... Kerik is a campaign killer. This will not end well.
NOTE TO SEAN
It’s not his divorces, IT’S HIS ADULTERY!
Don’t Tase Me, Bro.
**... Let’s just say those are an endangered species among Manhattan judges rarely seen outside picture books.**
Agreed... while at the diner waiting for the Wed AM local Fishwrapper, I mentioned ... why the delay? are they waiting for Election Results?? Just run headline “DEMS WIN BIG” and let it go ... and SURE ENOUGH that’s what the headline was.
Although, getting less than 50% of the vote, running UNOPPOSED, the DEMS should NOT claim Mandate.
A litmus test for a supreme court nominee? A president would never get that past an opposition congress. That pick would be DOA.
President Bush didn’t do that. Why would any president present a nominee before a senate committee in that fashion? The whole point of judges is that they not prejudge on a specific issue without a specific case before them. (in artfully put - but you know what I mean)
And how do you know that? What is said in private meetings stays in private meetings. If you think prospective judges never answer questions privately I've got a bridge to sell you.
The whole point of judges is that they not prejudge on a specific issue without a specific case before them.
Yep, that's the theory. Now how do you think Ruth Buzzy Ginsberg would rule if there was overwhelming evidence to overturn Roe?
Sssh! You can't say that out loud! They'll hear you.
Hey Doc! What’s happenin’?
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.