Freepers all worked up about O'Conner retirement (wrong one)

northzax

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jun-29-05 10:05 AM
Original message

Freepers all worked up about O'Conner retirement (wrong one)

I've never seen such concern for a District Attorney in Baltimore before...

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1433078/posts

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

mzteris

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jun-29-05 10:09 AM
Response to Original message

1. ROFL.........

However I found this bit interesting,

"Al Gonzales will not do.We must have a conservative." Correct, any Idiot that supports Gun control and is a member of La Raza is not a Conservative, let alone worthy of being the Attorney General."

They really do dislike him......

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

northzax

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jun-29-05 10:18 AM
Response to Reply #1

2. Bush will never throw Gonzales up there

unless it's 2007. Everything Bush is trying to do, Gonzales was in on the writing and would have to recuse himself. for all federal matters, anything involving the FBI, DEA, DoJ, White House or Executive office of the President, he's had to recuse himself. making it a 4-4 court.

plus, Gonzalez is not a rebid anti-choicer. He actually followed precedent and the Supreme Court to overturn Louisiana's abortion laws. that's not acceptable to the wingnuts.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

tigereye

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jun-29-05 10:22 AM
Response to Reply #2

3. O'Connor shouldn't be who they are worried about

she hasn't exactly been their friend, per se. I don't understand why these folks think that judges should or could have such simplistic thinking patterns. If you read some of the SC arguments... legal and philosophical.. they are highly complex and not one- sided in most cases. There was a wonderful article about Anthony Kennedy in the NYT this week which delineated the complexity of his thinking. Being on the Supreme Court is not a simplistic exercise. ( well, except maybe for Scalia, at times.) Some of his strict constructionist arguments are absurd of late.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

northzax

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jun-29-05 10:25 AM
Response to Reply #3

5. they'd love to get rid of O'Connor

and replace her with Clarence Thomas II. They are afraid of another Souter, someone who actually thinks, instead of parroting the party line, they don't want nuance and judgement, they want Clarence Thomas, who may be the worst justice in a century (although he may grow into the job)

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

tigereye

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jun-29-05 12:10 PM
Response to Reply #5

6. I just think it is so funny

that the justices that anger them are Rep. appointees from the days when judges were chosen with somewhat less ideological paranoia.... it is scary to think what kind of limited thinker * will try to appoint when he has the opportunity.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

rateyes

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jun-29-05 10:23 AM
Response to Original message

4. They just pulled the thread with the line...

wrong O'connor. Freeptards.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

DU AdBot (1000+ posts)

Tue Apr 30th 2024, 06:08 AM
Response to Original message

Advertisements [?]

Top

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.