Obama nominates flaming liberal bleeding heart Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court

[Snake Doctor]

This ought to be a fun confirmation to watch.

I love that he picked the woman who said "policy is made at the circuit court of appeals level"

Talk about rubbing the Republican's noses in it.

[nation-x]

I am not sure why you said she is a "flaming liberal"... she is actually considered pretty centrist.

Just FYI: She was also considered by George Bush...

She was appointed to the Appellate Court by George H.W. Bush

[Snake Doctor]

Originally Posted by nation-x

I am not sure why you said she is a "flaming liberal"... she is actually considered pretty centrist.

Just FYI: She was also considered by George Bush...

There are 100 names that are "considered" in order to make one group or another happy during this process. Don't delude yourself into thinking she actually stood a chance with Dubya.

While working for the famed Robert Morgenthau in the New York District Attorney's office in the early 1980s, she described herself as a "liberal.??

Also has drawn criticism for saying in 2005: ?All of the legal defense funds out there they're looking for people with court of appeals experience because it is-- court of appeals is where policy is made." She tried to backtrack, but conservatives are already rallying to defeat her based on this.

I think the "where policy is made" quote is key here, because hopefully we'll have a debate in this country about what the role of the judiciary is.
It's a co-equal branch of government, not a rubber stamp for congress that the conservatives have tried to say it should be the past 25+ years.

I think that, among many other good reasons, this is one of the key reasons she was picked. Not in spite of that quote but because of it.

The same way that it wasn't a mistake that Obama threw the word "empathy" out there at the beginning of this process and conservatives went into a frenzy over it.

[Snake Doctor]

Said Wendy Long of the conservative Judicial Confirmation Network:

"Judge Sotomayor is a liberal judicial activist of the first order who thinks her own personal political agenda is more important that the law as written. She thinks that judges should dictate policy, and that one's sex, race, and ethnicity ought to affect the decisions one renders from the bench."

Bwahahahahahaha. Come and get some.

[MaDalton]

i think the US must be the only place where being "liberal" (which means in my understanding something like "live and let live") is considered a bad thing. whereas the US was founded especially on these values - or did i get that wrong? please someone enlighten my stupid euro ass. thanks

[LAJ]

Hallefuckinluyah!

[Snake Doctor]

Originally Posted by MaDalton

i think the US must be the only place where being "liberal" (which means in my understanding something like "live and let live") is considered a bad thing. whereas the US was founded especially on these values - or did i get that wrong? please someone enlighten my stupid euro ass. thanks

Yeah, this is the only place I know of where liberal is used as a pejorative.

However, recent elections have shown that the majority of the country don't have a problem with "liberals". The right wing had just managed to delude itself into thinking that the majority of the country was "conservative" because they'd won a few elections. Turns out that wasn't the case.

[Tom_PM]

All I know is that she is clearly obsessed with bleaching her teeth.

[Phil21]

Originally Posted by MaDalton

i think the US must be the only place where being "liberal" (which means in my understanding something like "live and let live") is considered a bad thing. whereas the US was founded especially on these values - or did i get that wrong? please someone enlighten my stupid euro ass. thanks

That definition isn't what it is in the US, at least in the common parlance/political mudslinging arena.

Liberal as a put-down here generally means something akin to "increase tax rates, and give free handouts to the poor through welfare programs. Increase the nanny state to new never seen before levels, don't let people run their own lives because we know best".

Now, does it really mean that? Probably not But, that's generally what the "other side" would like people to think.

Conservative has generally in the past matched what you said above, but only in perceived definition - not actual actions. I think the past 8+ years should disprove that theory quite well.

In short, we have absolutely no major party in the US who espouses "live and let live". AKA "Get the living fuck out of my goddamned business, and I will give you the same courtesy in return". If we had such a party, I'd certainly vote for it and actually give a shit about politics again.

The US has moved far from it's days of folks valuing their independence, I really don't think a party following your definition of liberal would go very far this day in age here. Which is pretty sad if you ask me.

-Phil

[MaDalton]

Originally Posted by Phil21

That definition isn't what it is in the US, at least in the common parlance/political mudslinging arena.

Liberal as a put-down here generally means something akin to "increase tax rates, and give free handouts to the poor through welfare programs. Increase the nanny state to new never seen before levels, don't let people run their own lives because we know best".

Now, does it really mean that? Probably not But, that's generally what the "other side" would like people to think.

Conservative has generally in the past matched what you said above, but only in perceived definition - not actual actions. I think the past 8+ years should disprove that theory quite well.

In short, we have absolutely no major party in the US who espouses "live and let live". AKA "Get the living fuck out of my goddamned business, and I will give you the same courtesy in return". If we had such a party, I'd certainly vote for it and actually give a shit about politics again.

The US has moved far from it's days of folks valuing their independence, I really don't think a party following your definition of liberal would go very far this day in age here. Which is pretty sad if you ask me.

-Phil

thank you, this helped a lot

[Snake Doctor]

Originally Posted by Phil21

That definition isn't what it is in the US, at least in the common parlance/political mudslinging arena.

Liberal as a put-down here generally means something akin to "increase tax rates, and give free handouts to the poor through welfare programs. Increase the nanny state to new never seen before levels, don't let people run their own lives because we know best".

Well in terms of a Supreme Court Justice, liberal = pro choice on abortion.

Which is odd when you consider that the conservatives are the ones who claim the government should stay out of our lives as much as possible.

Originally Posted by Phil21

In short, we have absolutely no major party in the US who espouses "live and let live". AKA "Get the living fuck out of my goddamned business, and I will give you the same courtesy in return". If we had such a party, I'd certainly vote for it and actually give a shit about politics again.

Sounds like Libertarian is the party for you.

I disagree with them on alot of things but I have a hell of a lot of respect for them, unlike that other party that claims to like small government, because they're consistent.
They're not only for small government when it's in their best interest. They're always for small government and individual liberty.

[DrChango]

Originally Posted by Snake Doctor

There are 100 names that are "considered" in order to make one group or another happy during this process. Don't delude yourself into thinking she actually stood a chance with Dubya.






I think the "where policy is made" quote is key here, because hopefully we'll have a debate in this country about what the role of the judiciary is.
It's a co-equal branch of government, not a rubber stamp for congress that the conservatives have tried to say it should be the past 25+ years.

I think that, among many other good reasons, this is one of the key reasons she was picked. Not in spite of that quote but because of it.

The same way that it wasn't a mistake that Obama threw the word "empathy" out there at the beginning of this process and conservatives went into a frenzy over it.

Policy should be set by the legislative branch. Keep in mind the executive branch is tasked with effecting the will of the people, which is supposed to be expressed by the legislature, with the executive acting like a check on policy, not as that which sets policy. We are so far from the original intent of the Constitution that someone from the judicial branch making an absurd comment about policy doesn't matter a damn. We need to reboot

[Phil21]

Originally Posted by Snake Doctor

Well in terms of a Supreme Court Justice, liberal = pro choice on abortion.

Which is odd when you consider that the conservatives are the ones who claim the government should stay out of our lives as much as possible.

Agreed. I was going to make a comment regarding that in my earlier post, but didn't want it getting too long/off topic. It's bizzare that the "traditional" conservative is seen as someone who wants to legislate morality, but fiscally wants the government out of their business. Now, in practice not even the fiscal part holds true. I just don't get how someone can say they are conservative, if they are willing to tell someone else how to run their lives.

Originally Posted by Snake Doctor

Sounds like Libertarian is the party for you.

I disagree with them on alot of things but I have a hell of a lot of respect for them, unlike that other party that claims to like small government, because they're consistent.
They're not only for small government when it's in their best interest. They're always for small government and individual liberty.

I would have to say you're probably correct, and I feel much the same way. Some of their views I don't agree with, but they are one of the few parties that don't seem hypocritical as hell.

Everyone gives me so much shit about this, but really the only politician that I've followed I can say I agree with on any real level is Jesse Ventura. Granted, he's become a fucking loonbat lately on some things, but his core principles have never wavered and have stood through the test of time. Socially liberal, fiscally conservative. Perfect. He got *SO* much shit up here for the sound bites and some of his stances. But they are proving to be correct. I remember he got a ton of shit for veto'ing a bill in MN to force the pledge of allegiance in the classroom. I mean, absolutely vilified by the media/veterans groups/etc. This was right after September 11th. Yet, he stuck to his guns and now nearly everyone with a clue realizes it was a bill that was unconstitutional and trampled on the right to free speech. He had many such episodes happen, and it was sad to see the way the media attacked every little thing they possibly could about him.

Since that time, I've been rather jaded. Any honest politician will not want to put up with the bullshit of office these days - I know I wouldn't. Having you and your family crucified for every little thing because you're not playing the game the "right" way. I just can't see any normal honest person with good intentions wanting to run for and hold any high office these days. Smoked some weed in high school? Be ready to have that outed by people you knew 30 years ago and the media acting like it's the worst thing in the world. You and your wife split for a few months 10 years ago? Be ready to have that dug up, and "sources" giving them a bunch of trumped up drama BS... Basically, what normal person who led a real, full, honest (yes, with mistakes along the way) life would want all their skeletons brought into the public eye?

It's simply a shame "Politician" is a career these days.

-Phil

[BFT3K]

Originally Posted by PR_Tom

All I know is that she is clearly obsessed with bleaching her teeth.

Damn Liberals and their white teeth!

[Snake Doctor]

Originally Posted by PR_Tom

All I know is that she is clearly obsessed with bleaching her teeth.

Heh, well she was described in the 80's as being an incessant smoker, so maybe that's why.

[Snake Doctor]

Originally Posted by Phil21

It's simply a shame "Politician" is a career these days.

-Phil

IMHO, most of our problems can really be boiled down to that.

If all politicians were term limited, and by extension the influence of lobbyists and campaign contributions were minimized, things would be alot better than they are.

Things like that pledge of allegiance bill are perfect examples. Most pols would sign that bill because they're worried about their careers. Ventura didn't because he wasn't a career pol.

[kane]

Originally Posted by Snake Doctor

Yeah, this is the only place I know of where liberal is used as a pejorative.

However, recent elections have shown that the majority of the country don't have a problem with "liberals". The right wing had just managed to delude itself into thinking that the majority of the country was "conservative" because they'd won a few elections. Turns out that wasn't the case.

Yep, I remembering hearing Hannity about 4 years ago going on and on about how the fact was simply that most of the country was conservative. Obviously not.

The republicans would have you believe most of the country is conservative and the democrats want you to think most of the country is liberal. The reality is most of them are more centrist and independent. They call them the silent majority because those in the middle, while they may lean one way or the other, tend to not make a stink. The hardcore liberals and conservatives are the ones that protest and scream and yell over individual issues. Those in the middle tend to stay out of it.

[pocketkangaroo]

It's funny how people have turned this stuff into a sport as opposed to what's best for the country.

[Snake Doctor]

Wow.
Interesting tidbit that I just came across.

13 of the last 19 appointments to the Supreme Court were made by republican Presidents.

[After Shock Media]

Originally Posted by Snake Doctor

Wow.
Interesting tidbit that I just came across.

13 of the last 19 appointments to the Supreme Court were made by republican Presidents.

Which also goes to show that you do not always get what you think you are "buying". Those lifetime appointments are a bitch, nothing stops them anymore from saying fuck off I can express myself how I want now with no political concerns.

[Snake Doctor]

Originally Posted by After Shock Media

Which also goes to show that you do not always get what you think you are "buying". Those lifetime appointments are a bitch, nothing stops them anymore from saying fuck off I can express myself how I want now with no political concerns.

Actually that seems to not be the case, at least according to this article I got the info from.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30945022/

The appointments that were a "disappointment" to conservatives were confirmed by democratic controlled congresses, and in many cases weren't the first nominee for that opening. (Compromise picks after the first nominee withdrew or was voted down)

Those who were really paying attention knew that Kennedy, Souter, and Stevens were moderates, or at the very least "not conservative".

[Phil21]

Originally Posted by Snake Doctor

IMHO, most of our problems can really be boiled down to that.

If all politicians were term limited, and by extension the influence of lobbyists and campaign contributions were minimized, things would be alot better than they are.

Things like that pledge of allegiance bill are perfect examples. Most pols would sign that bill because they're worried about their careers. Ventura didn't because he wasn't a career pol.

Agreed. Somewhat.

Term limits by themselves simply don't do it. It would have to be "public service limit" or something, I'm not sure how it would work.

Right now, you generally have career politicians. They don't start off as a senator. They start small, work their way up the chain. It may take someone 20 years before they reach a relative position of power.

Need to somehow limit that chain entirely.. Maybe 12 years total or something like that.

I don't know, I also hate making laws like this in general - as it limits people's freedom. There is nothing wrong with the theory that someone may simply want to be a public servant, and enjoys that work the most (and is good at it). However, the practice just leads to a bunch of either corrupt, or at best completely out of touch, folks in government.

[Ayla_SquareTurtle]

I am appalled at some of this woman's past rulings. So much for being happy about another woman on the SC.

[BradM]

lenny2 = flaming liberal bleeding heart

[Snake Doctor]

Originally Posted by Phil21

Agreed. Somewhat.

Term limits by themselves simply don't do it. It would have to be "public service limit" or something, I'm not sure how it would work.

Right now, you generally have career politicians. They don't start off as a senator. They start small, work their way up the chain. It may take someone 20 years before they reach a relative position of power.

Need to somehow limit that chain entirely.. Maybe 12 years total or something like that.

I don't know, I also hate making laws like this in general - as it limits people's freedom. There is nothing wrong with the theory that someone may simply want to be a public servant, and enjoys that work the most (and is good at it). However, the practice just leads to a bunch of either corrupt, or at best completely out of touch, folks in government.

Well I'm for term limits mostly because that seems to be the best way to get the money out of the game. That's the real problem.

If there was public financing of elections, and campaign contributions weren't allowed, then that would serve the same purpose.

That won't work though because the courts have ruled that money is speech, and even without direct contributions the special interests can still flood the airwaves with independent ads for their candidate, which gives them undue influence over our pols.

Banning lobbyists from the capitol wouldn't be a bad idea either. If you want to lobby you have to do it in the candidate's home district. Those are the people who should be lobbying anyways.

Originally Posted by BradM

lenny2 = flaming liberal bleeding heart

You say that like it's a bad thing.

[pocketkangaroo]

I think one simple rule that would help immediately is banning any representative of Senator from working for a lobbying firm following their service for 5 years. Also banning them from working for any company for 5 years which provided them with donations for a campaign.

Would stop the shitbags who lobby heavily for something for an industry and then end up with a $2 million a year gig with the company after they resign.

[DaddyHalbucks]

Let's see some facts about this lady.

[GatorB]

Originally Posted by Snake Doctor

Said Wendy Long of the conservative Judicial Confirmation Network:



Bwahahahahahaha. Come and get some.

"conservative Judicial Confirmation Network"

Yes completely unbiased organisation.

Funny how it's ok for republicans to nominate "activist" judges. In fact the nominate MORE.

[GatorB]

I hope the conservative really go after her to the GOP can finnaly implode.

See she's be just the 3rd woman on the SC so bash her so ALL woman can think you picking on her. LOSE the woman vote GOP. She'd be the first Hispanic on the SC. Now Hispanics do vote dem more than repub but they do vote repub 30% of the time. So yes knock that back down to the 10% you get from blacks. Great way to win future elections by alienating potential voters.

[KillerK]

Originally Posted by GatorB

I hope the conservative really go after her to the GOP can finnaly implode.

See she's be just the 3rd woman on the SC so bash her so ALL woman can think you picking on her. LOSE the woman vote GOP. She'd be the first Hispanic on the SC. Now Hispanics do vote dem more than repub but they do vote repub 30% of the time. So yes knock that back down to the 10% you get from blacks. Great way to win future elections by alienating potential voters.

Hispanics don't vote though since they are here illegally and too busy picking strawberries.

[spanky part 2]

Every time I hear republicans saying they are going to filibuster I just want to remind them of the nuclear option that was on the table when they were in charge.

Buncha babies, eat shit, you lost, get over it pussies

Time to swing back to the liberal side and fix the shit they fucked up over the last 8 years. It's gonna be another 40-50 years before you even have a chance to take over again and when that happens I will be dead and gone.

I love it!

[slavdogg]

in the last 40 years the only liberal president US has had was jimmy "the cocksucker" carter who has gone down in history as the worst US president ever. Obama will follow his footsteps to hell as well. Clinton was not a liberal but more of a conservative / centrist president on a lot of the issues.

Now here is the list of conservative presidents over the last 40 years
Nixon + Ford 8 years
Raegon 8 years
Bush 4 years
GW Bush 8 years

Now someone point out a Supreme Court judge one of these presidents appointed that doesn't believe in a constitution ?? The job of the courts and judges is to interpret the laws and protect the constitution and not to legislate from the bench. This bitch clearly wants to legislate from the bench.

[slavdogg]

Originally Posted by GatorB

"conservative Judicial Confirmation Network"

Yes completely unbiased organisation.

Funny how it's ok for republicans to nominate "activist" judges. In fact the nominate MORE.

can u name "activist" judges republicans nominated to a SC ?

[nation-x]

Originally Posted by slavdogg

can u name "activist" judges republicans nominated to a SC ?

John Roberts is a corporate activist.

Originally Posted by Salon article in 2005

Former Michigan Gov. John Engler, who now leads the National Association of Manufacturers, used to talk about judges with George W. Bush back when the president ran Texas. The two governors found themselves in a similar bind. The corporate executives who filled their campaign coffers were outraged by rising legal costs and wanted to replace the judges on their state supreme courts with jurists more sympathetic to business.

Both Engler and Bush realized that the judges who pleased business -- by limiting legal damages, restricting government regulations, and protecting private-property rights -- did not always match up with the interests of the GOP's socially conservative base, which cared about issues like abortion, the death penalty and school prayer. There is a point [at which] social conservatives aren't always judicial conservatives," Engler said Wednesday. "President Bush understands that." And like Engler, then-Gov. Bush played his hand well. Before leaving office, both governors had helped transform their state judiciaries by appointing a coterie of pro-business jurists with enough conservative credentials to placate social conservatives.

So it should come as no surprise that on Wednesday Engler offered the business community's first major endorsement for Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts Jr., a judge who has also received accolades from social conservatives. Before a bank of television cameras at the National Press Club, Engler said he believed Roberts would help preserve the business community's legislative agenda. "I was never very worried," Engler said of the president's selection. "I think he has been pretty clear on the type of individual he would look for."

To date, most speculation about Roberts has focused on how he would approach blockbuster social issues like abortion, civil rights and gay rights. But the White House appears to have considered the interests of the corporate community as well. This has long been a strategy of those close to the president. In the early 1990s, Karl Rove, the president's chief political advisor, made his name in Texas by rallying corporate interests to help make the state's judiciary more business friendly. The corporate community, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, eventually expanded its effort to states such as Michigan, Mississippi and Ohio.

In recent years, Congress has passed laws that have forced some of the most costly bankruptcy, class-action and regulatory cases to move from state courts to federal courts. The effect has been dramatic: Corporate leaders, who are now far more comfortable involving themselves in judicial selection, have stepped up their efforts to shape the federal bench. "Rather than leave all the headlines to those who want to rant about the hot-button social issues, Governor Engler determined that it was high time that the economic interests were heard," said Darren McKinney, a spokesman for the manufacturers association.

And the business community has made its views known. Months before Roberts' nomination, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce had been sharing dossiers with the White House detailing the pro-business records of appellate court judges, though a chamber official said they did not share a dossier on Roberts. A coalition of lobbyists and trade groups, including the chamber and the manufacturers association, also came together to found the Committee for Justice, a group that has bought newspaper and television advertisements to support Bush's judicial nominees. "Roberts was in the top two or three for sure," said committee chairman C. Boyden Gray, a White House counsel under the first President Bush who has worked on Clean Air Act cases in the private sector. "He comes from this world."

Senate Democrats have also recognized the increased importance of economic issues, setting the stage for a clear line of questioning in next month's confirmation hearings. "Will he protect average Americans when their rights are abused by powerful corporations?" Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., asked last month after Roberts was nominated. "Will he ensure that private companies aren't allowed to pollute our rivers and our lakes and our air?"

Publicly, corporate and trade group officials use well-worn phrases to describe the sort of judge they would like to see -- "fair-minded" judges who will "interpret the law as written" and not "legislate from the bench." The phrases, which are used by all sides in these debates, mean next to nothing. But according to interviews with several corporate lawyers involved in the nomination process, the real agenda of the corporate community is quite simple. Companies want judges who can set clear guidelines that buffer the bottom line. According to a National Association of Manufacturers briefing paper, the organization seeks a judge that understands "the importance and practical consequences of decisions to business."

"The issues that affect the business community are so broad that you can't characterize whether the business community's position is liberal or conservative," says Stanton Anderson, the chief legal officer for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. When the federal government imposes burdensome regulations, corporations argue for states' rights, a classically conservative approach. When the regulations come from the states, corporate attorneys argue for federal intervention. Ironically, this has occasionally left conservative Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas ruling against business interests on issues of federalism and tort liability.

In his long career as a private attorney, Roberts often took positions opposing the conservative orthodoxy, arguing on behalf of his clients for expansive federal powers. His client list, which reads like a who's who of corporate Beltway influence, includes the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the American Gaming Association, the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, the Associated General Contractors of America and others. Between 1999 and 2003, Roberts also served on a nonpaying advisory committee to the National Legal Center for the Public Interest, an education group that takes money from corporations and promotes tort reform.

But none of those activities details Roberts' personal views on the legal issues that affect business, a fact that has prevented consumer groups from attacking him. "There really is nothing outside his private-practice record that indicates a terribly ideologically pro-corporate stance," said Kelly Landis, a spokeswoman for the Alliance for Justice, a coalition of environmental, women's and civil rights groups. "He comes down against business as often as he comes down for them."

The endorsement of the National Association of Manufacturers, which will likely be followed by nods from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other business groups, comes with a wide range of promised benefits. Engler's group will ask its 50 state affiliates to pressure their state senators to support Roberts. Engler will clear the way for individual corporations to weigh in on the race with contributions to independent advertising campaigns. And he promised to make calls on senators from about a dozen states who he has identified as wavering on the Roberts nomination.

He also said the association, one of the largest trade groups in Washington, would provide election-year support for senators who back Roberts. For wavering senators who face contested elections in 2006, such a promise might be enough to seal the deal. "That's an area where we might be very, very helpful," Engler said.

[GatorB]

Originally Posted by slavdogg

in the last 40 years the only liberal president US has had was jimmy "the cocksucker" carter who has gone down in history as the worst US president ever. Obama will follow his footsteps to hell as well. Clinton was not a liberal but more of a conservative / centrist president on a lot of the issues.

Now here is the list of conservative presidents over the last 40 years
Nixon + Ford 8 years
Raegon 8 years
Bush 4 years
GW Bush 8 years

Now someone point out a Supreme Court judge one of these presidents appointed that doesn't believe in a constitution ?? The job of the courts and judges is to interpret the laws and protect the constitution and not to legislate from the bench. This bitch clearly wants to legislate from the bench.

I believe the judge she is replacing sides on the liberal side more often than not and he was appointed by George HW Bush. Explain that one.

[GatorB]

Originally Posted by slavdogg

can u name "activist" judges republicans nominated to a SC ?

All of them. Besides since Souter sides on the "liberal" saide more often I think the neo-cons would consider him "activist" he was picked by W's daddy.

By the way he was chosen because they though he be on the conservative side which goes to show just because you pick a judge doesn't mean he'll go your way. Kennedy another judge appointed by a republican is often in the middle 50% of the time he sides with the conservatives 50% he sides with the liberals even though he was chosen because he was believed to be conservative. This chick could get in there and be a complete 180.

Besides there nothing wrong with balance. Having all conservatives on the bench is NOT a good thing and don't give me crap about conservatives being "constitutionalists" That is such a bullshit phrase that means nothing.

[Snake Doctor]

Originally Posted by slavdogg

The job of the courts and judges is to interpret the laws and protect the constitution and not to legislate from the bench. This bitch clearly wants to legislate from the bench.

So you're saying that Brown V Board of Education was a bad decision?

[Snake Doctor]

Originally Posted by slavdogg

can u name "activist" judges republicans nominated to a SC ?

How about the 5 who voted in the majority in Bush V Gore?

That was the most activist thing the judicial branch has done in this country in it's entire history.

Originally Posted by GatorB

I believe the judge she is replacing sides on the liberal side more often than not and he was appointed by George HW Bush. Explain that one.

1) George H.W. Bush wasn't a conservative ideologue. He nominated Souter because he knew it would be an easy confirmation. After watching the Robert Bork confirmation fiasco shortly before, he didn't want to go through that with his first appointment.

2) Souter was really an unknown in terms of ideology. One of the reasons he was easy to confirm.

[pocketkangaroo]

Originally Posted by slavdogg

Now someone point out a Supreme Court judge one of these presidents appointed that doesn't believe in a constitution ?? The job of the courts and judges is to interpret the laws and protect the constitution and not to legislate from the bench. This bitch clearly wants to legislate from the bench.

You do realize that conservative judges believe that porn is not a protected form of free speech, right?