A great choice!

We don't know much about him. In my book, that means I like him. A good chance for another David Souter to emerge. Or, at worst, another Scalia, but we were expecting that anyways so it wouldn't be so bad.

__________________
Freedom isn't free. But some payment options are much cheaper than others.

Let the process vet the nominee. Also let's not forget that there is no automatic appointment just because a president wants a certain nominee.

A SCJ will have to serve all of the people not just one president who nominates him/her/it. That is why there should be no rubber stamping.
The nominee goes through the process of critical review because it is a lifetime appointment. Rep or Dem the same type of vetting must be done. There should never be a buy appointment. The Seante must try to the best of their ability to make sure that some far off Leftie or Rightee does not get through. A far off Leftie or Rightee if not caought at nomination time could rage evel and havoc upon the entire nation.

The RNC parrots on this board who say that any and all presidential moninees if made by a REPUB should whiz through the process and get automaticaly appointed

__________________
"Oh bury me, then rise ye up,And break your heavy chains, water with the tyrants' blood, The freedom you have gained." Тарáс Григóрович ШевчéнкоT.Shevchenko- Poet of Ukraine

At worst, another Scalia? I think Scalia should be the prototype of a supreme court justice. Judges are on the court to interpret the constitution, not to read into it what they wish it included.

Abortion rights, euthanasia, etc. are questions for the people through their representatives, not for judges.

__________________
"George W. Bush surrounds himself with smart people the way a hole surrounds itself with a donut." —Dennis Miller

The Supreme Court plays a central role in giving people rights and serving the public good. As opposed to Congress, who serve whoever gives them the most money.

Congress had a terrible legacy of creating laws to keep blacks subdued. If the Supreme Court would not have legislated from the bench that blacks have the right to desegregated schools, segregation would still be in place.

If we do not have an honest contingency to keep Congress in line, and occassionally, legislate from the bench to make sure people have the rights they deserve, then our rights would be constantly trampled on.

In Roe vs. Wade, they created a right. Their is nothing wrong with that. The constitution is flawed, and this talk of simply interpreting it rather than adding to it makes no sense. How does it make sense to adhere to a flawed document as opposed to making it more perfect?

Before you say that it's Congress' job, I'd like to comment on that. Congress' job is to keep up with social change and legislate according to the views of the majority of society. Brown v. Board demonstrates that when Congress is slacking and not keeping up with social change, i.e. doing a cruddy job, the Court needs to step in and do it themselves.

The function of goverment is to give people what they want and need. 85% of America apporves of abortion. Those on the extreme right who talk about overruling it are out of touch with society, and are doing a cruddy job. How is it that more than half of Congress opposes abortion rights, yet 85% of americans support it? Why did racist small southern state congressmen dominate the senate when most of america disagreed with them?

As both cases show, legistlating from the bench is often neccesary and proper.

__________________
Freedom isn't free. But some payment options are much cheaper than others.

I agree 100%. The Supreme Court should be able to create any right they deem fit, and should not be bound to what is written in the law. Who cares what the public thinks? Democracy is overrated anyway. So long as it's okay for the people who sit on the bench, who are we to argue? I say we just trash the Constitution altogether and submit to the whims of those who sit on the bench. That way everything can be "perfect."

That politicians are corrupt and sell the benefit of their office to the highest bidder is too often true, but it is the people who should force that to stop by demanding better. Judges have no right to "give people rights" not included within the Constitution.

The problem with you quoted statement is that the Court didn't legislate from the bench in Brown v. Board of Education. The holding of that case was a reasonable interpretation of the Constitution. The "right to privacy" announced in Griswald, Roe, and their progeny is not a reasonable interpretation of the Constitution.

No. What we need to do is smack people who are so partisan that they give a blank chank to politicians they like even when it is clear that the politicians are acting improperly and not working for the benefit of the american people.

Do you have a link for that statistic? If true (which I doubt it is), abortion rights activists don't need Roe v. Wade. With 85% approval, it is inconceivable that pro-life candidates would be able to get elected if and when Roe v. Wade is overturned.

__________________
"George W. Bush surrounds himself with smart people the way a hole surrounds itself with a donut." —Dennis Miller

Aw, you are just saying that because the Court is about to take a strong turn to the right.

__________________
"George W. Bush surrounds himself with smart people the way a hole surrounds itself with a donut." —Dennis Miller

its a great choice.

No one knows how he is going to turn out. He is more than qualified for the job and he WILL get the job.

I think the Dems will and should ask their tough questions but at the end of the day, he should sail thru. He has been before them as an appellate judge already and it was almost unanimous.

This is one battle the Dems will do well to avoid.

Plus I don't care if he has argued to overturn Roe. Last I checked, there are 8 other justices on the court. Anyone know if 4 of them want it overturned as well?

__________________
"Only a fool tests the depth of the water with both feet."

"Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land. ... There's nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent."

- John Roberts during 2003 confirmation hearings

__________________
"George W. Bush surrounds himself with smart people the way a hole surrounds itself with a donut." —Dennis Miller