What can I say. I’m depressed. The best one could say, as a conservative, is that she’s a Bush crony. Well, she’s not very qualified, but she’s a good buddy of W, and he said to “trust us”, so here we go. She doesn’t seem to have a strong governing philosophy, which was the same problem O’Conner had. At least O’Conner was qualified. Any thoughts out there?

Posted at 06:28 pm by Johnny B

Posted by RaisingOrleans @ 10/03/2005 06:34 PM PDT
Not qualified at ALL…the only saving grace is the knowledge that Renquist was never aa judge prior to the supreme court either…still, that gives me little solace.

Posted by Reagan_Gahagan @ 10/03/2005 08:07 PM PDT
I completely agree. I was hoping that 43 would nominate a proven conservative in Edith Jones from the 5th Circuit. I was also hoping for a filibuster so that we could put the liberal threats to an end via the nuclear/constitutional option. I believe that 43 showed weakness because he didn’t want a drawn out fight while his numbers were low. I hope that this lady doesn’t turn out to be a Blackmun, Souter, or O’Conner (who I believe was the most destructive to the legal system because you never knew how she would rule).

Gingrich ’08,
Kerry ’08!

Posted by John Broussard @ 10/03/2005 09:40 PM PDT
The best case is if she signs off on all of Scalia and/or Thomas’ opinions. Even if she does that, she does nothing to advance the ball for constitutionalism, she just seems like a lightweight. My pick would have been Ted Olsen for Chief Justice with Roberts as the second pick. Compared to this woman, Roberts seems like a godsend. This is worse than W’s horrible first debate against Kerry, the nadir of his presidency. My prediction is W fails to avoid a fight, which seems to be the purpose of this candidate in the first place. My favorite pick would be Bobby Jindal, but he might be too young yet. What is the minimum age for justice?

Posted by Reagan_Gahagan @ 10/04/2005 11:56 AM PDT
There is no minimum or maximum age to be a supreme court justice. You don’t even have to be a lawyer to be a US Supreme Court Justice.

Posted by Hemonster @ 10/05/2005 05:19 PM PDT
I don’t know about the prevailing thoughts on this page, but I think it’s hilarious that this pick was made.

Everyone is standing there wondering, “what do we do about this?” “someone tell us how to think?” It just makes me laugh to think of all the databases and warrooms and media outlets poised to engage in yet another round of “culture wars” – to no immediate purpose.

If we can now have some quality questions of the nominee to ascertain her level of intellectual heft and personal perspective and prism of constitutional interpretation, that would be great. I never thought I would see a confirmation hearing where genuine questions will be asked (and hopefully answered) on CSPAN again.

I for one, will be tuning in . . .


Posted by Reagan_Gahagan @ 10/06/2005 11:08 AM PDT
As a conservative (no, I don’t speak for all conservatives), I will be contacting both of my Senators (1 Dem. and 1 Rep.) and asking them to vote no on her confirmation. I believe that the conservative base has far too many brilliant intellectual judges out there to confirm this lady. It’s not enough that she will always vote with Scalia and Thomas. If, God forbid, she ever gets to write a majority opinion, she could do some SEVERE damage to the rule of law, after the fact, by writing a sloppy opinion. Some truly brilliant lawyers will likely take her words and rip apart what conservatives have been working toward for decades.

The new judge
Tagged on:     

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *