Mary last edited by
What do y’all think?
I was looking him up and he seems decent, i havent conducted a thorough search though, so i could be mistaken.
Good pick IMO.
Although I like Janice Rodgers Brown the best.
At the retire after the Simpson Trial. Great choice! I’ll be voting for that due to its funniness.
El Jefe last edited by
His momma dun brung him up raight.
And she’s from NJ, damn!
I didn’t thank noone thar gnu raight from rong.
DarthMaximus, I think JRB may have been scared off by the Senatorial Games. Thought I heard it about a few of the women up for nomies… on Hannity me thinks.
Heard on the cBS Radio News that Justice Alito wrote over 230 Majority Decision and 100 Minority Decision reports while on the 3rd Circuit Court. That should give the Mediablurbs and blogs plenty of material to make a pro/con bite. Heard on Hannity radio that Planned Parenthood has already blasted Alito.
I like him already!
cBS and FOX said he was sharp/smart. Hanity said he had a great sense of humor and put people at ease…except if they were stupid(read that as you will.) Sean Hannity also said his answers to the Senators questions would likely make him popular with the American public.
Mebbe if’n we’s lucky we kin set a spell 'n watch a filibuster get busted.
Zooey72 last edited by
I hope Frisk goes through with his threat to destroy the fillabuster if the dems try it. I can not stand them(the fillabuster), and I say that with the opinion that repubs will lose both house and senate in 06… which means the fillabuster would have been a use for us.
I don’t know enough about this guy. I think Bush ate one too many retard sandwiches when he nominated miers though… Really makes you question the man’s IQ.
Linkon last edited by
I was rooting for Judge Judy.
I would have prefered Joe Brown.
Linkon last edited by
Ginsburg looks like an old a hag.
You need someone more bodacious for the next time a news making case gets media attention.
Oh yeah, the lawyers presenting need to be at least as hot as Marsha Clark… or even Ally McBeal.
221B Baker Street last edited by
Why is “too conservative” a problem for being a supreme court justice? No one complained about Ginsberg being “too liberal.” If the candidate is qualified, then what is the issue. After all the justices don’t make the law… or do they?
Who has more might … the oracle or the interpreter of the oracle?
I don’t think “too liberal” has really been an issue for a very long time. A Democratic president (not necessarily a liberal president) hasn’t had a choice for quite some time now, and that’s probably why the issue hasn’t come up.
In addition, I tend to think on the real hot button social issues, “liberal” causes are generally less intrusive. Pro-choice doesn’t actually impact people who don’t want to get an abortion for example. Neither does gay marriage, although a possible exception would be racial quotas, but that is in many ways recognized as being offset by preferential treatment of other groups in, say, college admissions, etc. This is probably not true for things like economic issues, but then again after Clinton’s centrist swing on trade policy, I’m not sure how much of a concern that is anyway. After all, sound economic policy has much stronger guidelines than “sound” social policy.
As for justices making law, well, they’ve done that since the Marshall court. I find the concern from the US right somewhat disingenuous, in that “no judicial activism” appears to be a cover word for advancement of socially conservative causes. Any act of judgment, even one to uphold precedent, is an act of judicial action, refining and redefining the parameters of the law. Whether a judge upholds the finding in Griswold, say, or does not, it still impacts the parameters of legal behavior in the United States and is in that sense, activist.