http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050719/D8BEKE903.html

 

Let the fun begin.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050719/D8BEKE903.html

 

Let the fun begin.

 

what fun would it be for GW to nominate Hillary R Clinton?????

I'm going for Karl Rove.

I'm going for Karl Rove.

No...see...the goal tonight is to get the attention OFF of Karl Rove, not on.

what fun would it be for GW to nominate Hillary R Clinton?????  

That would be one way to keep her out of the 2008 race I guess.

Edited July 19, 200520 yr by FlaSoxxJim

Several sources are saying it is going to be Federal appeals court Justice John G. Roberts Jr.

Edited July 19, 200520 yr by Balta1701

Here's a blurb on the guy from MSNBC:

 

Roberts had been in line to join the appeals court in 1992, but his nomination during the first Bush administration died in a Democratic-controlled Senate. He has generally avoided weighing in on disputed social issues. Abortion rights groups, however, have maintained that he tried during his days as a lawyer in the first Bush administration to overturn Roe v. Wade.

Lawyers generally do what theyre told in court.

Apparently he was conformer to the DC District court 99-0. I wonder how the Dems are gonna portray him as not unfit, when 2 years ago, he passed perfectly. If they really go on the attack, don't they risk looking like the complete partisan hacks that they are? Seriously, why does a Senator need to know just what a judges 'feelings' are on an issue. All that he or she shuold have to say is that they will rule according to the law. Isn't that supposed to be the plan? The fighing has already begun, and I am sick already. :banghead

Apparently he was conformer to the DC District court 99-0.  I wonder how the Dems are gonna portray him as not unfit, when 2 years ago, he passed perfectly.  If they really go on the attack, don't they risk looking like the complete partisan hacks that they are?  Seriously, why does a Senator need to know just what a judges 'feelings' are on an issue.  All that he or she shuold have to say is that they will rule according to the law.  Isn't that supposed to be the plan?  The fighing has already begun, and I am sick already.  :banghead

 

 

I don't think they'll have a leg to stand on if they try to oppose him. Oh sure they'll grill him with questions and rightfully so but this is not going to be a tough fight IMHO.

I don't think they'll have a leg to stand on if they try to oppose him.  Oh sure they'll grill him with questions and rightfully so but this is not going to be a tough fight IMHO.

 

no this was a reasonable choice...i think he'll pass pretty standardly...

 

honestly this was not the choice i was expecting and i'm somwhat pleased.

The only real stumbling block he's going to have is the abortion question, and explaining his ruling on the very recent Hamdan v. Rumsfeld.

 

This is definitely a choice I can live with. I don't know much about him, but - from little I've read - it looks like the President didn't play politics with this pick. Major props for that.

This is definitely a choice I can live with. I don't know much about him, but - from little I've read - it looks like the President didn't play politics with this pick. Major props for that.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The only real stumbling block he's going to have is the abortion question, and explaining his ruling on the very recent Hamdan v. Rumsfeld.

 

This is definitely a choice I can live with. I don't know much about him, but - from little I've read - it looks like the President didn't play politics with this pick. Major props for that.

 

 

As far as I can tell he's somewhat to the right of where O'connor is but he's not the flaming idealouge that the media was expecting...........and hoping for.

flaming idealouge

I like that phrase. Nice wordsmithing Nuke.

As far as I can tell he's somewhat to the right of where O'connor is but he's not the flaming idealouge that the media was expecting...........and hoping for.

 

I agree that I am surprised Bush picked Roberts and can live with the decision.

 

He has said that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided, but recently said he abides by the law, what worries me is that he is in the position now to possibly overturn that law and it makes me nervous. I hope he listens to the arguments and not the politicos.

Apparently he was conformer to the DC District court 99-0.  I wonder how the Dems are gonna portray him as not unfit, when 2 years ago, he passed perfectly.  If they really go on the attack, don't they risk looking like the complete partisan hacks that they are?  Seriously, why does a Senator need to know just what a judges 'feelings' are on an issue.  All that he or she shuold have to say is that they will rule according to the law.  Isn't that supposed to be the plan?  The fighing has already begun, and I am sick already.  :banghead

 

 

"Roberts had been in line to join the appeals court in 1992, but his nomination during the first Bush administration died in a Democratic-controlled Senate. He has generally avoided weighing in on disputed social issues. Abortion rights groups, however, have maintained that he tried during his days as a lawyer in the first Bush administration to overturn Roe v. Wade."

 

 

 

i think someone has been misinformed already. i think the other speculated judge, the female, was approved 99-0. This guy has been hit hard by the dems in the past. I expect the same ahead.

 

I'm really disapointed in the President right now. He had an opportunity to be a "uniter and not a divider" by replacing a moderate witha moderate. That would have been acting Presidential in such a closly divided country. Of course, he chose the other route as he always does. Those texan's sure do love a fight don't they?

I don't think they'll have a leg to stand on if they try to oppose him.  Oh sure they'll grill him with questions and rightfully so but this is not going to be a tough fight IMHO.

 

If you consider all courts as equal, I guess one could just rubber stamp every judge that's on the bench.

 

The Supreme Court Judges must be held to a higher standard than even the next lowest judgeship. There are no backups, no more appeals.

 

From what I've read so far, they (Bush and Co.) picked someone without much of a paper trail to pick over. How sad is that when experience and opinions would be a detriment? I blame both parties for that environment.

"Roberts had been in line to join the appeals court in 1992, but his nomination during the first Bush administration died in a Democratic-controlled Senate. He has generally avoided weighing in on disputed social issues. Abortion rights groups, however, have maintained that he tried during his days as a lawyer in the first Bush administration to overturn Roe v. Wade."

i think someone has been misinformed already. i think the other speculated judge, the female, was approved 99-0. This guy has been hit hard by the dems in the past. I expect the same ahead.

 

I'm really disapointed in the President right now. He had an opportunity to be a "uniter and not a divider" by replacing a moderate witha moderate. That would have been acting Presidential in such a closly divided country. Of course, he chose the other route as he always does. Those texan's sure do love a fight don't they?

 

 

There are some people out there who would b**** if Bush nominated Hillary Clinton to the bench screaming about how she was too conservative.

 

:rolly

Considering that Justice Ginsburg was overwhelmeingly approved, even though she is a flaming liberal, maybe the damn Democrats need to take the high road that the Republicans took during her nomination. It seems the Republicans didn't worry about the philosophical standings of Ginsberg. Maybe the powers that be in the the Democratic Party need to worry a bit more about being "uniters and not dividers".

If you consider all courts as equal, I guess one could just rubber stamp every judge that's on the bench.

 

The Supreme Court Judges must be held to a higher standard than even the next lowest judgeship. There are no backups, no more appeals.

 

From what I've read so far, they (Bush and Co.) picked someone without much of a paper trail to pick over. How sad is that when experience and opinions would be a detriment? I blame both parties for that environment.

 

 

I am totally with you on that one. Gone are the days when having your own opinion was respected. Nowadays you are guaranteed to get portrayed by one side as the worst thing that could ever happen to America depending on what your political inclination is. In this case the leftist interest groups are screaming bloody murder about a guy who, by all indications, is fully qualified for the job.

 

Like I said earlier, I think the Dems will make some noise in the media and they will surely work him over pretty good in the hearings but there won't be too much partisan trouble over this. Had Bush nominated Gonzales though, there would have been total war.

There are some people out there who would b**** if Bush nominated Hillary Clinton to the bench screaming about how she was too conservative.

 

:rolly

 

And if Clinton nominated Roberts, he would have been portrayed as too liberal. It's all the same stuff.

 

I expected and applaud Bush for nominating someone who is a conservative. That is his right as President, and that is how our system works. I will also applaud the Dems for working hard to assure there are no skeletons in the closet. This person is appointed for life and our system works when both sides take their responsibilities seriously and give 100%.

And if Clinton nominated Roberts, he would have been portrayed as too liberal. It's all the same stuff.

 

I expected and applaud Bush for nominating someone who is a conservative. That is his right as President, and that is how our system works. I will also applaud the Dems for working hard to assure there are no skeletons in the closet. This person is appointed for life and our system works when both sides take their responsibilities seriously and give 100%.

 

 

You can almost see the dissappointment in the media that Bush nominated this guy. They wanted someone who was gonna cause a brawl and they didn't get it.

Considering that Justice Ginsburg was overwhelmeingly approved, even though she is a flaming liberal, maybe the damn Democrats need to take the high road that the Republicans took during her nomination. It seems the Republicans didn't worry about the philosophical standings of Ginsberg.  Maybe the powers that be in the the Democratic Party need to worry a bit more about being "uniters and not dividers".

The way I look at it, when Rehnquist retires he SHOULD be replaced with a conservative. As it was the Supreme Court was very nicely balanced out--and I felt like decisions were handed down very routinely (due, mostly to the moderate) that considered the actual constitutional basis of the question at hand. However, I feel that a liberal should be replaced with a liberal, a conservative with a conservative and a moderate with a moderate. I think a well balanced supreme court will be better for the nation than a skewed one and will foster decisions that will benefit the nation as a whole NOT one side or the other.

More than abortion, I'd like to hear his opinion on eminent domain if that ever comes up again...