Free Republic

I disagree with your point of view.

P.S. Libby could have learned Plame function/ID from Cheney -AND- from reporters

Will be interesting to see his defense play out. I'm surprised at the perjury count.

LOL

Are you advocating that the President nominate an O'Connor clone?

A dissenting opinion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 947 F.2d 682 (3d Cir. 1991), arguing that a Pennsylvania that required women seeking abortions to inform their husbands should have been upheld. As Judge Alito reasoned, "[t]he Pennsylvania legislature could have rationally believed that some married women are initially inclined to obtain an abortion without their husbands' knowledge because of perceived problems--such as economic constraints, future plans, or the husbands' previously expressed opposition--that may be obviated by discussion prior to the abortion." Chief Justice Rehnquist's dissent from the Supreme Court's 6-3 decision striking down the spousal notification provision of the law quoted Judge Alito's dissent and expressed support for Judge Alito's reasoning.

http://www.sctnomination.com/blog/archives/candidates/alito/index.html

Are the DEMs on clear record as being in favor of judges that "legislate from the bench?" Do the DEMs want to strip the people of the power to decide social issues, and instead have judges decisde those issues? They do stand for that, bt haven't been forced to say so, in those terms.

The DEMs have succeeded in making the judicial nominations a question of issues advocacy. For example, "The conservatives will take away your right to choose!" But in fact, stripping the abortion matter from the court gives "the right to choose" back to the people.

With the argument properly framed, if there isn't a mandate, then we have forever lost the Republic of our founders.

It's the government's argument why Miller and Cooper should be compelled to testify. That case was settled in the government's favor.

Focus on the Family Action - October 27, 2005

Colorado Springs, Colo. -- Focus on the Family Action founder and chairman Dr. James C. Dobson issued the following statement today in response to Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers' decision to withdraw her name from consideration:

"I believe the president has made a wise decision in accepting Harriet Miers' withdrawal as a nominee to the Supreme Court.

"In recent days I have grown increasingly concerned about her conservative credentials, and I was dismayed to learn this week about her speech in 1993, in which she sounded pro-abortion themes, and expressed so much praise for left-wing feminist leaders.

"When the president announced this nominee, I expressed my tentative support, based on what I was able to discover about her. But I also said I would await the hearings to learn more about her judicial philosophy. Based on what we now know about Miss Miers, it appears that we would not have been able to support her candidacy. Thankfully, that difficult evaluation is no longer necessary."

http://focusaction.org/press/a0000118.cfm

That information I do not have.

As I've asserted on numerous occasions, a person's PERSONAL attitude toward an issue is not a good indicator of how that person would rule, if in the position of being a judge of the facts and the law.

In this particular decision, Brown came down on the pro-life side of the issue. Her side lost.

In American Academy of Pediatrics v. Lungren, 16 Cal.4th 307 (1997), the majority struck down on state constitutional grounds a statute requiring pregnant minors to secure parental consent or judicial authorization before obtaining an abortion.

In a lengthy dissent, Brown castigates the court for acting as a super-legislature. She states early in her dissent, "The fundamental flaw running throughout [the majority's] analysis is the utter lack of deference to the ordinary constraints of judicial decisionmaking--deference to state precedent, to federal precedent, to the collective judgment of our Legislature, and, ultimately, to the people we serve."

She is particularly dismayed by the court's lack of deference when, as here, the standards dictated by state, federal, and legislative precedent are clearly derived from history, context, and text. With regard to the statute itself, it is notable that Brown (1) finds the statute's age limitation not unreasonable, and (2) acknowledges a liberty interest in parents' controlling their children that is "historically more sacrosanct than a minor's right to privacy."

http://www.goldsteinhowe.com/blog/archive/2003_03_23_SCOTUSblog.cfm

Lots more good stuff at that link, not all of it about Brown, but much of it including cites to other cases where Brown rendered an opinion.

Here is the ACLU take on the case ...
http://www.aclunc.org/reproductive-rights/ca-court.html

Keep in mind, the ACLU is talking about the majority in the case, and Brown dissented against the majority opinion.

The spineless Senators are a disservice to the conservative cause, and can only be exposed by forcing them to take a position.

The conservative-liberal war will not be won in a single battle, but conservatives WILL lose the war if they avoid the battles.

I think the GOP has egg on its face now, for adopting a go-along/get-along approach with its sworn enemies in the DEM/liberal movement.

I honestly don't know. I see two primary camps in that prediction department.

One camp predicts that Gonzales will be a pick, nominally because the pick will energize Hispanic voters, and perhaps because Bush rewards loyalty (another crony pick), or because Bush wants to stick a needle in the eye of the uber-right-wing conservatives who objected to the Miers nomination, since he knows these same people object to Gonzales on the frounds that GOnzales has demonstrated judicial activism (see TX parental notification cases).

The other camp predicts that Bush will avoid a Gonzales pick, for the same reasons noted above. That he is not vindictive, and that he intends to honor his campaing promise to nominate strict constructionists, where "strict constructionist" can be fleshed out with the benchmark examples of Thomas and Scalia.

LOL! Pot Kettle stuff!

I've admitted that I am no choir boy, and I willingly admit it yet again.

Your vitriol was directed at the President, the Senate and the nominee and everyone who tried to stand in the way of it.

By complaints go in those directions, yes. But for the most part, my complaints have avoided personal attacks, and I can't recall EVER, not one time, making a personal attack except in defense of myself.

You don't even know what you have wrought, despite many trying to tell you.

None of us has a crystal ball. I defer to the professional pollsters, etc. for their prognostication. I personally think there is a big upside to having the GOP openly advocate for strict constructionist judges, even if the battle is lost on any given nominee. I think the conservative cause benefits more when the conservative message is in the open, than when the conservative message is kept under wraps for whatever reason.

You will understand it by 08. You had better believe it. This is it, no more patience. This coalition is broken irrepairably this time. That is that....We have had enough.

Okay. Bye.

Q17. Constitutional Issues

In answer to question 17, you explained that as Counsel to the President you are regularly faced with issues involving constitutional questions, but gave us no specifics about the issues themselves, or the work that you personally did. Please provide the Committee with details concerning the specific matters you handled, the constitutional issues presented in those matters, and the positions you took related to those issues. This question was designed to help the Committee learn more about your experience with constitutional law, and if most of it was gained during your years in the White House, it is important that we know more about the specifics of that experience. ...

Q22. Potential Conflicts of Interest

Please be more specific in your answer to this question by telling the Committee any categories of cases from which you plan to recuse yourself, and by addressing in particular the problem of recusal as it relates to the litigation of cases arising out of matters on which you worked at the White House, or as a lawyer for President Bush in his personal capacity, or in service to his various campaigns. We are aware of the statutes and codes that generally govern these matters, but recusal decisions of Supreme Court Justices are more complicated because they are not subject to further review. The Committee would like you to address the issues specific to your situation.

http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200510/101905b.html

The difference between the very real public call for documents, made to the WH via the press, and the formal recapitulation, isn't material to the debate.

It flies in the face of fact to argue that no GOP Senator, and no DEM Senator was requesting internal documents. The pressure was there, regardless of the presence of an objectionable written request.

I'm not going to lecture you, but I will point out that your vitriole will not attract or energize voters.

If the party is to win, the burden is on the party to attract and energize voters. It's not the competition's fault when the GOP loses.

Stop being a defeatist, and put on your history cap and thinking cap.

We don't! That's the point! We need to defect issues advocacy questions and make them into "I advocate no particular position on the issue, and believe that under the Constitution, the people should decide the issue, not the Courts."

Lots of GOP here defended that the ends (getting "our" nominee on the bench) justified the means, where the means was to advance a nominee with no discernable philosophy.

I submit that government by stealth is inherently bad for the people, that stealth is a dishonest technique, used by power brokers to avoid confrontation, accountability, or otherwise distract the people from the issue that is really at ahnd, which is limiting the power of the Courts, and returning social decisions to the people.

As for the proposition that hearings weren't held, she wasn't given an opportunity to be heard, etc., those complaints demonstrate a shallow and superficial understanding of the political process. Sure, she pulled herself or was pulled in reaction to political pressure. Well, that is the President's prerogative. And he can choose to listen to, or ignore "the voices from outside the WH." But just Ms. Miers was his pick, withdrawing her nomination is also his pick. The process worked fine. There is plenty of historical precedent for nominations to be withdrawn, at various stages in the nominate-confirm-appoint process.

To hold the Miers case (pulled because of wrong-headed objection) out as an aberration is to adopt a DEM tactical argument, aimed again at distracting debate from the core issues at hand.

To the rest of your post - Author! Author! - well said!

The litmus test of conservatives is "struict constructionism," or "follow the separation of pwoers laid out in the Constitution."

Do you have a problem with that litmus test?