1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Who would you nominate?

Discussion in 'Political Debate & Discussion' started by raunhawk, Jul 9, 2005.

  1. raunhawk

    raunhawk New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2005
    Messages:
    96
    Ratings:
    +0
    Now it would be nice if we could keep this thread nice and civil. No personal attacks are needed here.
    Debate upon answers should be met with thoughtful questions and courteous responses. As Christians there is no reasons why this shouldn't happen. I know in the past I have been known to say things that I now regret and I am trying to move past that.

    So lets get down to the skinny of this thread.

    Here is the scenario:

    You are the President of the United States right now. You have just recieved Justice O'Connors resignation. And you will very likely recieve Chief Justice Reinquists resignation soon. Who would you nominate to fill these 2 spots, and if you would like you can explain why.
     
  2. raunhawk

    raunhawk New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2005
    Messages:
    96
    Ratings:
    +0
    Here is how I would do it.

    My first nominee would be Janice Rogers Brown to fill the vacancy of Justice O'Connor. I am in no way joking on this one. I think she has a proven track record of strictly interpreting the constitution. Granted her nomination will be met with hostile opposition from a majority of the Democratic Party. But as POTUS the final decision on the nominee comes down to me.

    Then, on Justice Renquists spot I would do something different. I would first nominate Justice Clarence Thomas for the postition of Chief Justice. Then to fill his spot I would nominate Lindsey Graham of South Carolina. Since I could most possibly expect Senator Graham to turn down the position I would then consider Emilio M. Garza.
     
  3. Joseph_Botwinick

    Joseph_Botwinick <img src=/532.jpg>Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2000
    Messages:
    17,527
    Ratings:
    +0
    I would find the two most staunchest, pro-life conservatives I could and nominate them. From my research so far, those two people seem to be Justice Garza and Justice Luttig.

    Joseph Botwinick
     
  4. TexasSky

    TexasSky Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    I would nominate Sam Cummings and Garza.
     
  5. KenH

    KenH Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Ratings:
    +0
    I would nominate Michael McConnell and Richard Epstein.
     
  6. ASLANSPAL

    ASLANSPAL New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2004
    Messages:
    2,318
    Ratings:
    +0
    Two conservatives without a litmus test...even
    the Democrats are consulting it should be
    conservatives judges that is the decorum when you
    have a conservative President..It is the decorum
    President Clinton got from Orin Hatch.

    I agree with the President this can be done without spending 100 million dollars but then
    again the $media$ would love to have those dollars
    so it may get shrill regardless.

    In a crunch...Ted Olsen...Alberto Gonzales in the
    spirit of decorum and conservative President.
     
  7. Joseph_Botwinick

    Joseph_Botwinick <img src=/532.jpg>Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2000
    Messages:
    17,527
    Ratings:
    +0
    Of course there should be a litmus test:

    1. Conservative
    2. Pro-life

    Joseph Botwinick
     
  8. raunhawk

    raunhawk New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2005
    Messages:
    96
    Ratings:
    +0
    I would have to say that if a judge is a strict constructionist no litmus test is necessary.
     
  9. StefanM

    StefanM Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    Messages:
    7,024
    Ratings:
    +408
    The main problem with saying "no litmus test" is that litmus tests are inevitable. Even "strict constructionist" means nothing without evidence of specific rulings, positions, etc. (bam! litmus test comes from the back alley and hits us in the face!).

    "No litmus test" is basically the cry between a rock and a hard place. GOP says it when it comes to filibustering conservatives; Dems say it when it comes to nominating justices.

    I'm with Joseph.
     
  10. OldRegular

    OldRegular Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Messages:
    22,678
    Ratings:
    +80
    Janice Rogers Brown or Priscilla Owen to replace O'Conner

    Thomas or Scalia as Chief Justice

    Luttig or Miguel Estrada to replace Thomas or Scalia

    And while we are dreaming;

    Miguel Estrada or Luttig to replace Justice Stevens.
     
  11. fromtheright

    fromtheright <img src =/2844.JPG>

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2002
    Messages:
    2,772
    Ratings:
    +0
    The only one I knew much about was McConnell, mostly for his church-state position. He wrote an excellent law review article on the history of established churches in America before the Revolution.

    I would also take the raunhawk/OldRegular approach, would slightly prefer Scalia over Thomas for CJ.

    I didn't know anything about Garza or Luttig until I read about them on this Slate.com website. Thanks, JB.
     
  12. Bro. James Reed

    Bro. James Reed New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2002
    Messages:
    2,992
    Ratings:
    +0
    Just read a few of the reviews on the website, ftr, and I must say that McConnell sounds wonderful!

    Move over Ken, I am now on his nomination bandwagon. ;)
     
  13. Hardsheller

    Hardsheller New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2002
    Messages:
    3,816
    Ratings:
    +0
    I vote for Olsen.
     
  14. KenH

    KenH Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Ratings:
    +0
    Welcome aboard. [​IMG]
     
  15. fromtheright

    fromtheright <img src =/2844.JPG>

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2002
    Messages:
    2,772
    Ratings:
    +0
    Some good articles by McConnell that I just found:

    HERE

    HERE

    Unfortunately, his article "Establishment and Disestablishment at the Founding, Part I: Religious Establishment" appears to be no longer available in full on the Internet. I printed it a few years ago and it is an excellent history.
     
  16. Bro. James Reed

    Bro. James Reed New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2002
    Messages:
    2,992
    Ratings:
    +0
    Just sent my email to Mr. Bush asking him to nominate Mike McConnell.

    Also sent an email to about 100 friends on my e-list who I know are Christian conservatives. I provided the info from slate.msn.com, a short personal message regarding my feelings on his potential nomination, and the email address for the President.

    Maybe it will help.

    I'm excited about this now! [​IMG]
     
  17. Joseph_Botwinick

    Joseph_Botwinick <img src=/532.jpg>Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2000
    Messages:
    17,527
    Ratings:
    +0
    Ken,

    After reading more about him vs Luttig and Garza, he does appear to be more conservative. Is this a correct assumption on my part? If so, I think I will join your bandwagon. The question is, will the president attempt to appease the political enemies of the United States of America, or will he jump on our bandwagon also?

    That is yet to be seen.

    Joseph Botwinick
     
  18. Bro. James Reed

    Bro. James Reed New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2002
    Messages:
    2,992
    Ratings:
    +0
    Joseph, I don't mean to answer for Ken, but after reading the reviews, I think I can say that McConnell's is the most solidly conservative name in the running thus far.

    If he doesn't get the nomination, perhaps he should run for President.

    I hope President Bush makes the right decision for this nation.

    Bro. James
     
  19. Baptist in Richmond

    Baptist in Richmond Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2003
    Messages:
    5,075
    Ratings:
    +6
    Thomas or Scalia?
    Thomas perhaps, but not Scalia.....
     
  20. Joseph_Botwinick

    Joseph_Botwinick <img src=/532.jpg>Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2000
    Messages:
    17,527
    Ratings:
    +0
    I like both Thomas and Scalia. I especially like Scalia as he stands against the idiotic liberal idea that our nations laws should be interpreted in light of international opinion. Either one would be perfectly acceptable to me for Cheif Justice.

    Joseph Botwinick
     
Loading...