« Divorce Rate Falls As “Shacking Up” Rises | Home | Let Them Starve »
Bush Nominates Roberts
By Matt Margolis | July 20, 2005
I think Bush made a great choice. By nominating Judge Roberts, the conservative base is galvanized, and while we’ll see some grandstanding from the Democrats, they won’t be able to block this nominee. Conservatives are happy tonight. The American people and the Constitution are also big winners tonight.
Topics: General |
Related Posts:
July 20th, 2005 at 10:33 am
Nice. As if the government wasn’t anymore conservative, the Supreme Court has been converted as well. How exactly is the government supposed to be good for the people if its doesn’t properly represent its population? You need to rephrase that last statement. “Half of the American people… are also big winners tonight.” The rest of us who could care less who gets married and whatnot, lose yet again.
July 20th, 2005 at 6:38 pm
Let’s not piss around and pretend you had any other alternative than thinking Bush made a good choice. Like the Ukraine agreeing with Moscow on international issues, it’s plain biased. So let’s not pretend you have the choice, ok?
July 20th, 2005 at 9:12 pm
The choice was not mine to make. i could have not liked Bush’s pick.. but i happen to be pleased.
July 21st, 2005 at 10:42 am
Todd - You make a mistake when you think that conservatives are so monolithic. I certainly would not make that mistake about “liberals.” Ann Coulter, for example has attacked the decision. And – the word conservative means something different outside the Court compared to inside. “Constructionist”, or “Originalist” might work better.
Don’t forget, the Supreme Court decided that Dread Scott was not a human being and that the government was justified is detaining thousands of Japanese-Americans in World War Two. The modern “liberal” court has limited gun rights – a move I find as onerous as limiting voting or speech rights. In fact, “liberal” states have used techniques VERY similar to the tools that were used to restrict blacks voting to restrict gun rights. Yet, because in their minds “liberals” believe these rights SHOULD be restricted they are OK with it. It is also the liberal North East that led to the recent decision
Both the liberals and the conservatives have acted and are acting to restrict rights and liberties based upon their beliefs. Realistically, even that statement is subject to further refinement. There are people who hold social-conservative views but conservative-fiscal views. You must admit, that there are many variations of opinion.
I want the court to protect me from both sides and from all people who think they know what I should do better than I do. The only party I have heard stand up for individual liberty and rights above all else is the Libertarian Party. Their message is appealing – if their choices in leadership and chances of ever gaining power are not. So, I have prioritized the rights and beliefs I deem more important and looked for a party that I think can best protect them. That appears to be the Republicans. Though honestly – I’m not in lock-step with all other Republicans on every issue.
July 21st, 2005 at 10:44 am
Norteast - recent decision to restrict property rights. Forgot to finish my thought.
July 22nd, 2005 at 8:05 pm
The issue isn’t whether a judge is “Conservative” or “Liberal”, rather the question is will he/she (or it?) interpet the Constitution as written and as the founding fathers intended? We should NEVER appoint a judge who will use the court to push their personal agenda. So, as long as a judge is a TRUE constitutionalist, I don’t care if he or she is black, white, man, woman,gay, or whatever…just as long as they are not an activist judge, they’re okay with me.
July 23rd, 2005 at 1:27 am
Michael, I think that puts it fairly well.
May 21st, 2006 at 5:44 pm
radisson hotel
Palestinian melodiously fencers?Noetherian Jurassic boston hotels http://boston-hotels.hotels-4all.com/