GW did something right.

[thesightless]

finally. looked around about the roberts fellow and i so far like the pick. you know this is good because advocacy and special interest groups cried. too bad, no more judges bending to the pressure of outside parties. like i said, give the senate and house the more liberal ideals, and let the SC be measured in its decisions. no more of this shit giving outside parties the right to buy your land from the gov't at half the price you paid for it and then put up a mall.

[toasty]

Re: GW did something right.

Gotta say, I disagreed with the imminent domain decision as well, but it seems to have really chapped your ass -- I think you've made mention of it in just about every judicial-related post since the decision came down!

Seriously, I'm not ready to hop on this guy's bandwagon just yet, but I'm not ready to decry his nomination, either. He's only been on the bench for a short period of time and has kept his views on things pretty close to the vest, from what I can gather. Although he obviously does have an impressive resume, we're entitled to have a Justice with an ideology that is not wildly inconsistent with the mainstream. Whether or not he falls into this category remains to be seen -- I'm reserving judgment until the confirmation hearings.

Looks like the abortion thing will be an issue, and he hasn't really spoken to it definitively. He's evidently on record saying that Roe should be overturned, but that was in a brief from a position of advocacy, so there is no guarantee that he believes that. He's also on record acknowledging that Roe is the law of the land, but that doesn't mean that he wouldn't change it, of course, once he has the opportunity.

I do hope that there is no filibuster for purely paritsan reasons. If it's truly justified, then I'm OK with it, but for better or worse, Bush is the pres and he gets to pick a justice -- that he happens to be further right than I might like isn't really enough alone to justify putting the nuclear option back into play, since most anyone Bush selects is probably going to be disagreeable to me on some level.

[thesightless]

Re: GW did something right.

i cant complain about this. he is a quiet individual who seems to be on spot balancing morals with interests of others. and the big name dems cant really complain becuase they need to appear moderate to try to re=invigorate the party, thereby alienating the far left, and the same goes for the repubs. maybe this is another step to bringing some centrist ideas to the parties at large. they will have to pull a john kerry and suddenly flip thier opinions and votes that were given to him before if they want to turn him down. a lot of the moderates from both ptys wrote brilliant opinoins on him in the past nominations.

and yes, i recently saw a group of homes in my area seized to put up a mall that all the civic assoc's and citizen vehemently disagreed with. NO ONE in the area wanted it, but SIMON Corp. paid thier way through it. now we can count on more traffic, prop depreciation, unwanted people in our quiet little area.

[thesightless]

Re: GW did something right.

couple of more things.

1. his abortion views were put forward under contract as an advocate. it was his responsibility to represent the client. ill give him a pass there. (i am anti abortion unless its rape or health problems, ppl need some responsibililty)

2.how can the democrats demand, and i stress the wording ""straight answers"" when thier poster boy for the last decade went on national TV and asked a prosecuter what the word "is" meant. and now the bitch wife of his, who stuck through 4 affairs is trying to be their new candidate.(big mistake on their part for not shooting her down now)

3. this guy seems pretty sqeaky clean. gonna be hard to throw him to the wolves.

4. he ahs clerked for both liberal and conserv judges.

5. his biggest problems come from special interest parties, which i am happy about, keep them out of gov't. we dont need 5 million gov't dollars to save a bird on the island of guam.

i hope he pulls an opposite of o'connor who was assumed to be far right but went to the middle which leaned the court to the left a ways. he might get confirmed and go far right. not really a bad thing in current events.

they just need to get either the house or senate back the dems, but not both as bush is out and i dont think anyone will be voting republican next term, so the balance needs to be maintained before a huge swing to the left occurs. we need to avoid the socialistic trends of late.

lastly, i think we should just disband state and fed gov't and give it to the ppl on the local lvl. thaT way, ppl get what they want wihtout pissing on each other.no more WASPs calling bush fans rednecks and no more texans wanting to bomb NYC and boston b./c we are heathens.

[toasty]

Re: GW did something right.

he is a quiet individual who seems to be on spot balancing morals with interests of others.

Not sure how we could reach a conclusion on him one way or the other at this point, given how little time he has spent on the bench. I heard this morning that he had written something in the neighborhood of 60 opinions. When you consider how rarely a case involving "moral" issues makes their way through the appellate system when the body of potential legal issues is so massive, I doubt there is much in there to get a feel for how he would rule on some of those touchier issues. I'm sure to the extent they are out there, though, we'll know about them in the next couple days.

they will have to pull a john kerry and suddenly flip thier opinions and votes that were given to him before if they want to turn him down. a lot of the moderates from both ptys wrote brilliant opinoins on him in the past nominations.

That's ostensibly true, but...

There is certainly a different standard for approving someone to sit as a Circuit Court Judge and for the SCOTUS. A Circuit Court judge need only have the education and experience necessary (at a pretty high level, mind you) and an ability and willingness to faithfully follow precedent. When you are being appointed for the highest court in the land and you are not bound by prior precedent, however, making sure that your ideology is not wildly different from the mainstream is fair game, I think. It is not as easy as, "well, he was confirmed before, so he should be confirmed again." I doubt that distinction will get much airtime, much, tho, since I'm sure the "reconfirm him" concept will be RNC Talking Point Number 1.

Again, I don't want his confirmation to be held up needlessly -- but I do want to see the members of the SJC ask him lots of questions and not rumber stamp him. That's all I'm saying...

[thesightless]

Re: GW did something right.

i just noticed....

it the court was all republican, or worked it to be the supreme court responsible, we could change its acronym to SCROTUS. jsut a thought.

[toasty]

^^