Okay, how about this man for Justice nomination?

He is a fine man and would be great.

 

I like him

Always have.

 

I like Luttig and Garza, or perhaps Michael Savage? Now, that would really drive the libs bonkers...

Joseph Botwinick

 

My favorite is Michael McConnell.

 

I am not so sure...I think I would rather have a conservative instead of a weak kneed moderate.

Joseph Botwinick

 

Joseph, are you a Luttigator?

Someone said that the problem with Olson is that he is over 60, but that would be age discrimination, wouldn't it? I think that he would be good because he very well understands the deep damage that Nine Eleven did to this country.

 

As much as I would love to see Janice Rogers Brown nominated, I know she couldn't get through the Senate as the "moderate" Republicans would not support her.

There is nothing weak-kneed about McConnell. He is a conservative with a libertarian streak(as am I). He has gone on record stating that Roe v. Wade is "an embarrassment to those who take constitutional law seriously."

To use an election analogy - to nominate someone that is so conservative that he/she would have practically no chance of winning confirmation instead of someone, such as McConnell, who would have a difficult time but still make it through(in my opinion) would be like voting for Peroutka instead of Bush in 2004.

 

Sounds like a reasonable choice to me. Now if we can just convince the president and Senate to let the BB choose the next justice we will be in good shape .

 

I think that age should be a consideration. The younger a conservative choice is the longer he/she can potentially sit on the court.

 

Nuclear Option. They'll make it through. It might take shutting down the Congress (which, face it, would that really be such a bad thing? ), and fighting the libs for the next four years, but this one decision will last us at least the next 20-30 years. This decision is too important to leave in the hands of a moderate who is endorsed by several liberal democrats as a moderate:

http://www.usdoj.gov/olp/mcconnellsupport.htm

We don't need another Sandra Day O'Connor.

 

Michael McConnell is not a "Sandra Day O'Connor.

If at least six of the seven "moderate" Republicans don't go along then the "nuclear" option won't work.

I would rather have someone actually get on the court who can help us make strides on the abortion issue(regardless of what some conservatives see as a problem on not supporting coercive prayer) than to lose this battle and see Bush forced by events to actually nominate another "Sandra Day O'Connor".

 

You consider prayer at graduation coercive?

Joseph Botwinick

 

I don't think it is unreasonable to describe it as such. There are some issues where I do not march in lockstep withe the Christian Right. It's that libertarian streak I have.

 

"Yet the self-described theologically conservative Christian is also known for his opposition to abortion and for helping the Boy Scouts of America fight to exclude homosexuals.

McConnell has supported school vouchers and an end to the rigid separation of church and state that prevailed in the 1970s. That could prove appealing for the Bush administration's goal to funnel more government money to religious social service programs.

McConnell has also said he is a strong supporter of judicial restraint, arguing that Congress and not the courts should be the authority on defining and enforcing civil rights.

Friday, Elliot Mincberg, vice president and general counsel of the liberal think tank People For the American Way Foundation, said concerns over McConnell as a potential nominee have multiplied with the O'Connor vacancy.

"There's no question he's very intelligent and a good lawyer, but his philosophy is very far to the right of Sandra Day O'Connor and in some ways Chief Justice Rehnquist," Mincberg said."

- SOURCE

If McConnell was weak-kneed I don't think that the PAW would be terrified by his potential nomination.

 

You might be right. Is there a way that I can see a history of his actual rulings as a judge?

Joseph Botwinick

 

http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/pdf/03-3132.pdf

http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/pdf/03-4031.pdf

http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/pdf/02-2323.pdf

 

What is [a] real shame is that who sits on the U.S. Supreme Court is this big of a
deal. That is not the way I think that the Founding Fathers envisioned it and certainly not the way I want it to be.

[ July 02, 2005, 02:44 PM: Message edited by: KenH ]

 

The founding fathers did not want to make the supreme court the way to change the constitution...that's why they had an amendment clause. Sadly, the court has usurped power, and there is no recourse but to stock it full of conservatives.

 

Ken,

I certainly agree with you there. What would it take to legally impose term limits for the unelected, unaccountable tyrants on the bench?

Joseph Botwinick