If There's a Supreme Court Vacancy This Week . . .

By AndrewHyman Comments () / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

I hope this question will be asked of the nominee during the confirmation hearing:

Suppose a case comes before you that requires a choice between two options. Option number one is endorsed by the "mainstream" of this country's legal community, and is really the most compassionate and fair choice for the parties involved in the case. Option number two is to uphold the clearly intended meaning of the Constitution, which is different from option number one. Will you choose option number one or two?

Any nominee who says "option number one" should be voted down, and sent to Siberia, if the Russians are willing to accept such a disgraceful immigrant.

UPDATE: A reporter in Huntsville, Alabama directs a bit of sarcasm at Fox News for excessive coverage of a possible Rehnquist retirement announcement. Also, a possible Gonzales nomination is discussed by Mike Krempasky and others, over at Redstate (I'm with Mike).




Click here to visit our sponsor SRC="http://ads.he.valueclick.net/cycle?host=hs0004665&t=std&b=indexpage&noscript=1;msizes=160x600,120x600;bso=listed">


 
Redstate Network Login:
(lost password? new user?)


About ConfirmThem

ConfirmThem.com is a collaborative blog hosted by RedState and dedicated to confirmation of judicial nominees who will uphold the original intended meaning of the Constitution, using judicial restraint. Until 2009, this blog provided news and analysis regarding judicial confirmation battles in the U.S. Senate, and gave every American the opportunity to be heard in Washington. Now this blog is in a holding pattern, awaiting judicial nominations we can support. For info about our bloggers, see here.

Recent comments



©2006 Redstate, Inc. All rights reserved. Legal, Copyright, and Terms of Service