My vote goes to Pat Buchanan. A nice even tempered moderate.

Barney Frank.

*sigh*

Anybody who thinks the president should nominate a judge who does not share his political views is being foolish.

Look, there was almost no fighting for Clinton's two Supreme Court nominees. In the past, presidents have pretty much nominated those who they felt interpreted the constitution correctly i.e. fit thier own ideals.

All these talking heads and socialist Democrats demanding a moderate, or even a liberal, judge are forgetting that they lost the election and are in no position to be telling the president what to do here.

In the past 28 years, only one president has been a Democrat.
Democrats (i.e. socialists and other sundry leftists) have lost both houses of Congress.

And yet, Dems want to act like we are in their house and should obey their rules. What a bunch of elitist snobs!!!

The president should nominate someone who HE feels is the best for the job. NOT who Kennedy, Clinton, etc, think would be the best liberal justice.

BTY, I am getting more and more sick about all these judges in our country creating law from the bench. If this keeps up, it won't be long before the Legislative branch of our government is nothing more than a puppet show.

My guess, V, is that you wouldn't mind if you happened to agree with the interpretations, so those arguments are hollow.
Of course, it is bush's pick, but if he wants to avoid a very divisive fight with a great political cost, he would be very wise to CONSULT with the democrats before sending the choice down, JUST AS CLINTON DID.
Clinton did this (consult with the reps) for his two choices, and there were no problems.
Learn something from the master ... BILL CLINTON.

***John G Roberts, 50, an appeals court judge for the DC circuit Roberts, who has been on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit since June 2003, was one of President Bush's least contentious picks for the bench.

A former Rehnquist clerk, Roberts was associate counsel to President Reagan from 1982-86 and then served in the first Bush administration, arguing cases before the Supreme Court from 1989-93.

***J. HARVIE WILKINSON III
Wilkinson, 60, another prospect from the 4th Circuit, has been consistently conservative in his rulings since being put on the court by President Reagan in 1984

**Emilio Garza, 58, New Orleans-based 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals in 1991 ( would be first Hispanic)

**Michael McConnell, 50 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver by President Bush in 2001.

**Edith Hollan Jones 55, has served on the New Orleans-based 5th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals since 1985 when President Reagan tapped her for the post

*Alberto Gonzales, 49, became US Attorney General in February (A long shot this time around)


Next Chief Justice - Antonin Scalia


T HA T
IS
A LL!

That may be true, but it is more of a truism. I think you would agree that this applies to anybody involved in the question, or even anybody who even has an opinion about the matter.

But I don't want this to degenerate into a post-modernism debate about "can absolute truth and absolute right be found?" So I'll leave it here.

Bill Clinton did consult with the Reps, and that was good. I agree Bush should do the same with the Dems. In the end, I won't mind senators and pundits expressing disappointment if Bush chooses an originalist, but I will be quite upset if they express dismay, anger, or indignation. That is just wrong and unreasonable.

Hehehe, of course, they won't care if little ol' me gets "quite upset."

Obviously, Bush will nominate a conservative, and the Democrats will scream bloody murder, and Bush's choice will sit on the bench for the next 20 years. Foregone conclusion. It may happen three times in the next three years.

One Democrat in the White house in 28 years? Carter and Clinton, almost 12 of the last 28 years. I believe that in the last 19 elections, Democrats won ten and the Republicans won nine. Pretty evenly matched.

Ben-T, I agree that nationwide, the Democratic Party has almost forgotten how to win elections: STEAL THEM!!

He's hardly a moderate.

Fit2BThaied wrote



Let's do the math. The next election is being held in 2008. Reagan came into office in 1980. From 1980 to 2008 is..ah!! It's 28 years!! Imagine that! President Carter, dude, was BEFORE the years I mentioned.

There was Reagan, then Bush 41, then Clinton (shudder) then Bush 43. In 28 years, 20 of those years will have been conservatives, 8 have been a single liberal. And, Clinton only came in office because the conservative vote was split between two conservatives each time. Clinton never had the majority of voters.

That makes you wrong, buddy.

Well, technically speaking, it is still 2005 .... not to be anal or anything .... but 2005 - 28 = 1977.

But, then, whose counting?

Well, technically speaking, Bush will be in office until 2008, so my statement holds true. I should have stated what I meant better in my first post, but what I am saying is true nonetheless.

You see, America is largely conservative, and becoming more so because all the liberal ideals have made America weaker and divided.

But they can't see that, that's the beauty of it all. They are convinced America is on their side, and when they constitute only 5% of America's population, they'll still be thinking that.

How come you speaking EBONICS, dog?

Ummm, put the doobie down.

HEY, now that is a brilliant rebuttal! Wow, wish I had thought of that!

NOT!!!

Typical leftist response, TQ. Name calling. Besides, I thought you lefties liked ebonics

Gop 4 life wrote:


So very, very true.

Somehow I think name calling is not the province of any particular side.
On ebonics or any dialect, sure it is OK, as long as you can also speak the Queen's English. No fag jokes now, pleeeeeeeze.

Bork, Robert. This time we would win. Although it might be better politically to use him as a threat. As in fillabuster my nominee and I'll make Borek a recess apointment. And the Constitution REQUIES that recess appointments get voted on in the Next session. This seems to be a backdoor way of getting a nominee out of committee. What will be interesting is if Reinquest kicks the bucket this summer. Givwe the Left fits to have President Bush get 2 shots a once. I love it.

Why would the right want to avoid a fight? Running from fights it something you pussy blue staters do. Red staters WIN fights. This is a winnable fight, and one that should be pressed to the hilt.
The Judicary is overstepping it's bounds on a daily basis. 2 Ways to stop the Judicary taking powers NOT granted to it by the Constitution. Impeachment or appointment. It would be better for the Republic if the route used was appointment, but the Left could care less about the Republic.
Thawkella, pull a bill out of your wallet (If Live 8 left you any) and see what it says on the back.

Yes, the backwards bush legacy will surely last at least 50 years thanks to the stupid, stupid American voters.

Don't confuse the voters with the vote-riggers.

This item makes a good case for why we should be afraid, VERY AFRAID, of the new bush supreme court:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...5070101787.html

Talk about an activist judiciary!!!!
This is war.
This is going to be the biggest fight in the bush presidency and you can forget about soc sec changes.

can view with bugmenot.com

There you go again, Thaiquila. Why do you continue to prove me right? I said name calling is something typical of leftists, and you do it again! It's amazing! I didn't even bait you, you just obliged me!!


Hilarious!

Vander,
the phrase stupid, stupid American voters is kind of my trademark phrase ever since the mistake the voters made in the last election.
If you think it is so funny, I would love to be a comedian with you in the audience. Easy to please.

T HA T
IS
A LL!

That is very deep, traitor.

Your trademark phrase is what is stupid. Did I hurt your feelings, or are you just whiny because of your genetic material?



And, TQ, what the blank does THAT mean? Is he a traitor because he disagrees with you? Having delusions of monarchy, eh?

Either that or you misspelled his name, and didn't actuallly call him a traitor. Any way you look at it, though...

Vander, you sound like a juvenile. How old are you?

Ho ho ho! Pulling out the big-gun names, are you? Now I am a juvenile.

You are so much fun, I think you're a keeper

Like some others on this forum, if I pull a bill out of my wallet and see what it says on the back side, I don't get anything I can print on this website. I'm from Texas - does that make me a Red? Communist or Redneck? The bills in my pocket are pink - does that make me a pinko Commie fellow-traveller, or gay? Indeed, it's juvenile, like calling any of us 'pussy blue staters." Are you an expert on the pussy in the blue states? My pacifists can beat your pacifists.

I suspect Bush will get to nominate 3 judges, and 3 conservative judges will sit on the court for another 20 years. Some of their decisions will be fair; there are some excesses in the American system that need to be corrected. Unfortunately, with a one-party government in all three branches of federal government, there will be no balance. A tyrannical president and congress will do anti-Constitutional things, and the tyrannical court will rubber-stamp it.

T HA T
IS
A LL!

bush might appoint three YOUNG judges, which means his legacy will be more like 50 years.
Amazingly, the village idiot has become one of the most important presidents in US history, in a bad way.

ustrader, I not only understood your last post, but I agree with it. The liberal controllers of the Democratic Party need to get their heads out of the sand (or wherever their heads are ) and nominate candidates for all offices, who will win elections.