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

How about just nominating a few more like Justice Scalia, Pat?
1 posted on 05/16/2010 9:16:10 AM PDT by Nachum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-39 next last
To: Nachum

Is it not obvious why he is MSNBC’s token Conservative(sic).


2 posted on 05/16/2010 9:17:24 AM PDT by mnehring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: SunkenCiv

*ping*


3 posted on 05/16/2010 9:18:30 AM PDT by hennie pennie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Nachum

If he’s worried about too many Jews...let’s see how he likes homosexuals on there.

What a dope...no wonder he’s the token conservative.


4 posted on 05/16/2010 9:19:39 AM PDT by WKUHilltopper (Fix bayonets!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Nachum

And there are absolutely NO Protestants on the Supreme court either.
for a nation based on Judeo-Christian heritage, a large segment of the population is not represented in ideology of Protestant upbringing.


5 posted on 05/16/2010 9:19:47 AM PDT by o_zarkman44 (Elect Chuck Purgason, US Senate, Missouri! http://www.purgasonforsenate.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Nachum
Pat is apparently captive to the bogus notion that the Court "needs to look like America." Justices don't represent anybody. They are supposed to interpret the law and render judgments. That's all. Buchanan has the same idiot idea that Laura "We need more women" Bush has. And they are both muddleheaded.
6 posted on 05/16/2010 9:21:14 AM PDT by hinckley buzzard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Nachum

did he really suggest that or was he trying to make a point about liberal hypocrisy and diversity?


7 posted on 05/16/2010 9:21:55 AM PDT by Kid Shelleen (Keep your socialized health care off my body !!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Nachum
Article VI US Consitution.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

8 posted on 05/16/2010 9:22:42 AM PDT by MNJohnnie (The problem with Socialism is eventually you run our of other peoples money. Lady Thatcher)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Nachum

NAZIs are also underrepresented on the Supreme Court. Pat could fill that lack, but then we’d have still another Catholic!

Enough of ethnic and religious politics. Let’s just have the best legal minds on the Supreme Court. That should eliminate Elena Kagan.


9 posted on 05/16/2010 9:23:36 AM PDT by devere
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Nachum

I think he’s pointing out that libs, who are oh-so concerned about “diversity” never apply the rule in their appointments.


11 posted on 05/16/2010 9:24:09 AM PDT by BradyLS (DO NOT FEED THE BEARS!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Nachum
That's one thing I find troubling about Pat. He hits it dead on on many issues but on this one, he's off target. He is looking more and more anti-Semetic each day. I know not all Jews voted for Obama or democratic, true a majority did, but I think they might begin to wake up since Obama is screwing Israel left and right.

My concerns are her stances where she is not SC material, she would restrict freedom of speech, what she wrote sounds a lot like the old Fairness Doctrine. She seems to be a barking moonbat. One interesting thing though, she can win a Chas Bono look alike contest. B-D
12 posted on 05/16/2010 9:24:17 AM PDT by Nowhere Man (General James Mattoon Scott, where are you when we need you? We need a regime change.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Nachum
The difference between Liberals and Conservatives is that the latter allows for the fact that certain ethnicities are better skilled than others, and that, in a meritocracy, such folks deserve the opportunities available to their talents. We may recognize that the NBA is predominantly black, or that white gentiles are a minority on Ivy League campuses, but we don't see anything that needs to be rectified, as such statistics reflect the facts that certain groups of people disproportionately have certain talents in excess of the general population.

In Pat's case, whenever I've seen him comment on this, it seems to me as he is saying "we have affirmative action against white males in government employment, why not have it in out favor in the Ivies." Such comments wreak of envy and bitterness, which is odd considering 1. Pat attended Columbia, an Ivy League school and 2. Pat is probably one of the few senior citizens not in charge of their own company who is making the amount of money he does as a talking head on a network.

The fact that Scalia is Catholic or that Kagen is Jewish mean little to me. If Scalia's philosophy were rooted in continental Catholic reactionary corporatavism I would not want him on the court, just as I don't want Kagen on the court for her lack of respect for original intent.

20 posted on 05/16/2010 9:31:17 AM PDT by Clemenza (Remember our Korean War Veterans)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Nachum

I wonder about Pat why smear a whole race he should have said too many secular humanist on the Supreme court.


21 posted on 05/16/2010 9:31:29 AM PDT by restornu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Nachum

I am so sick of the blatant media manipulation. The put this out in the hope that conservatives will think we have an anti-semite in our mix.


23 posted on 05/16/2010 9:34:49 AM PDT by Kenny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Nachum

Buchanan doesn’t like Jews because they’re Jews; Obama just hates who Jews who support Israel. They share disparate but equally reprehensible viewpoints.


25 posted on 05/16/2010 9:41:45 AM PDT by Spok (Free Range Republican)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Nachum

That’s funny - I have never heard Pat complain about too many Catholics on the SC - oh yeah - he’s Catholic.


26 posted on 05/16/2010 9:42:08 AM PDT by plain talk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Nachum

Mark Levin.........what an outstanding justice he would be!


27 posted on 05/16/2010 9:43:11 AM PDT by Outlaw Woman (Control the American people? Herding cats would be easier.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Nachum

Given that he’s a raging anti-semite, perhaps he’ll be happy when muslims are on the supreme court.


29 posted on 05/16/2010 9:45:53 AM PDT by exbrit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Nachum
Roosevelt sought and got credit for nominating the first Jew to the Supreme Court. Lyndon Johnson won approval for appointing the first black. Ronald Reagan was praised for appointing the first female . Barack Obama was credited for the first Hispanic.

All of these ethnic groups and women demanded these nominations of one of their own. Many of them decried a court staffed only with white males. Each "first" was applauded by the diversity crowd. In half a century we have managed to turn a co-equal branch of the federal government into an affirmative action slut machine. If an appointment can legitimately be praised for advancing the interests of a favored ethnic racial or gender group, cannot those not so favored legitimately complain?

If we appoint a judge on the basis of race, ethnicity, religion, and gender, anyone who fails to complain if his group was ignored is a fool. I fully expect the Mormons to begin pressuring for the appointment of one of their own. Next in line will be the Muslims. Will Jews be accused of bigotry if they complain someday that they had no place on the court but the Muslims own 33 1/3% of the court?

Why do we on the basis of these remarks accuse Pat Buchanan of bigotry? As a white male Protestant I want more white male Protestants on the court to defend me against the diversity pirates on the court. I did not start out this way, they made me this way. I refuse to unilaterally disarm.

If they move the race war to the court, I will wage war in the court because I want to survive. I will not blame Pat Buchanan for telling the truth. I will not claim racism where none exists but I will insist on having my race, my gender, and my religion represented. I will put the blame where it belongs, on the race mongers who created this situation and not on a courageous messenger who tells us the Emperor has no clothes.


30 posted on 05/16/2010 9:47:03 AM PDT by nathanbedford ("Attack, repeat, attack!" Bull Halsey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Nachum

Buchanan is not a conservative.


31 posted on 05/16/2010 9:47:47 AM PDT by Eric in the Ozarks (Impeachment !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Nachum

More to the point, liberals, who represent 30% of the US population, will have half the SCOTUS seats.


35 posted on 05/16/2010 9:53:12 AM PDT by Argus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-39 next last

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