Okay, how about this man for Justice nomination?

Ken,

How did you find these cases? Has he made any rulings involving the abortion issue?

Joseph Botwinick

 

I Googled until I found a story that had those links.

No rulings in his circuit that I am aware of.

 

I want to make it clear that while McConnell is my first choice, as long as Bush nominates a solid conservative that I will certainly support his nominee.

 

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1046288236047

 

Are you kidding? This is the best joke I have heard all week. Michale Savage, a Supreme Court Justice! Roflol!

 

If we could get congress shut down for any period of time, that would be great! The less time they have the better. Nominate whoever it takes to make it happen.

 

Thanks for the link, Joseph. If he is Bush's pick I would be pleased to support him for confirmation.

 

My favorite is still Sam Cummings.

 

Hey, Joseph, you'll be pleased to know(for what it's worth at this point) that the rumor mill at redstate.org says that Garza is the current frontrunner.

 

Don't know if its true but heard over the weekend that McConnell has stated he would not vote to overturn Roe v Wade.

 

Some comments on McConnell,


Source: http://www.denverpost.com/nationworld/ci_2824809

JUDICIAL PHILOSOPHY

"I have a whole bunch of writings out there that were provocative, and innovative, and taking a different view," McConnell said at his confirmation hearings.

On abortion - an issue that dominates Supreme Court nominations - McConnell is "a right- wing ideologue with an extensive record of vehement opposition to a woman's fundamental constitutional rights of reproductive choice and privacy," according to a statement by NARAL Pro- Choice America, the leading abortion-rights group.

In 1996, McConnell joined a group of prominent anti-abortion activists and signed "a statement of pro-life principle and concern" called "The America We Seek."

"Abortion kills 1.5 million innocent human beings in America every year. There is no longer any serious scientific dispute that the unborn child is a human creature who dies violently in the act of abortion," the statement said.

The Supreme Court decision that recognized a right to abortion - Roe vs. Wade - was "a gross misinterpretation of the Constitution" that "wounded American democracy," the statement said. It called for the Supreme Court to reverse itself, and for a constitutional amendment banning abortion.

And in a 1998 op-ed piece for The Wall Street Journal, McConnell contended that "the reasoning of Roe vs. Wade is an embarrassment to those who take constitutional law seriously."

"The right of privacy is nowhere mentioned in the Constitution," McConnell wrote. "The Supreme Court brought great discredit on itself by overturning state laws regulating abortion without any persuasive basis in constitutional text or logic."


"We don't get too much of the white bread and mayonnaise from you. It's a very, very strong, passionate statement for everything," Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., told McConnell, reviewing the scholar's writings at his confirmation hearing in 2002.

Yet when testifying during those hearings, McConnell sounded more accommodating to the notion of privacy and abortion rights, and provided a more textured reading of the law.

The Supreme Court's reasoning in Planned Parenthood vs. Casey, the landmark case that affirmed Roe vs. Wade, was more soundly grounded than the original decision, McConnell said.

Roe "has been reconsidered and reaffirmed now by justices appointed by Presidents Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush (and) Clinton after very serious re-argument," said McConnell. "Today it is much more reflective of the consensus of the American people."

A constitutional amendment banning abortion "is not going to happen," McConnell told the senators. And he spoke approvingly of a German Supreme Court ruling that recognizes a government's obligation to restrict abortions 15 days after conception, but does not necessarily criminalize the procedure.

Liberals remain worried. McConnell's vow to restrict himself to applying "settled" law as an appellate judge won't matter if he is lifted to the Supreme Court, whose members have the authority to rethink the law.

 

That's right.