ConfirmThem

Really Senator McCain? I bet judges Saad, Boyle, Haynes, Wallace, and Myers would have adhered to the constitution and protected the unborn, but somehow I don't remember you fighting to get them approved. Oh, wait a second, getting along with Ted Kennedy was more important, so you and your precious "Gang of 14" let the Dems kill their nominations? I wonder what you'd do if there was a vacancy and Chuckie Schumer called you with his "do not nominate list". Actually, I know, you would fold like a cheap tent.

Please retire to Arizona as soon as possible and take your South Carolina lapdog with you.

http://www.newsmax.com/romney/

Mitt Romney's Got the
Right Stuff for 2008

NewsMax Magazine has just released its April 2007 cover story. Please take a moment to read Ronald Kessler's exclusive story on the former Massachusetts governor. Also check out our FREE offer for our Romney edition with a special gift — Click Here Now.

By Ronald Kessler

Mitt Romney was faced with a crisis in July 1996. The 14-year-old daughter of Robert Gay, a partner in Romney's new venture capital firm, Bain Capital, had disappeared. As it turned out, she had attended a rave party in New York City and had become high on ecstasy. Three days later, her distraught father had no idea where she was.

Romney took immediate action. He closed down the entire firm and asked all 30 partners and employees to fly to New York to try to find Gay's daughter.

Romney set up a command center in a conference room at the LaGuardia Marriott just outside Manhattan. He hired a private detective firm to assist with the search and established a toll-free number for tips, coordinating the effort with the New York City Police Department, but he still wasn't satisfied. He raced through his Rolodex and called everyone Bain did business with in New York. He asked them to help his company find their friend's missing daughter.

The company's accounting firm, PricewaterhouseCoopers, and its law firm, put up posters on street poles with a photo of the missing teenager. Cashiers at Duane Reade Pharmacies, which was owned by Bain Capital, put fliers in the bag of each shopper.

Romney and others from the Bain Capital posse trudged through every part of New York, even scouring Central Park, and talked with everyone they could - prostitutes, drug addicts - anyone who may have seen her. They also made rounds at the local nightclubs at 3 a.m., hoping someone somewhere could identify her.

The same day the Romney team came to New York, the hunt made the evening news. Television cameras showed photos of the girl and video of investment banker types prowling through Central Park.

The next day, a teenage boy she was with phoned in. He asked if there was a reward. But the boy got nervous and quickly hung up. Luckily, the police traced the call to a home in Montville Township, N.J.

Gay's daughter, when they found her in the basement of that home, was shivering through detox after a massive dose of ecstasy. Doctors later told Gay that he was indeed fortunate - his daughter probably would not have lasted another day.

"It was the most amazing thing, and I'll never forget this to the day I die," Gay says, adding of Romney's intervention, "I'm not sure we would have gotten her back without him."

It is often during a crisis that we gain insight into a person's real character. Romney's action demonstrated leadership, loyalty, and selflessness - attributes that Americans just might like to see in a president of the United States.

"What most people really object to when they object to a free market is that it is so hard for them to shape it to their own will. At the bottom of many criticisms of the market economy is really lack of belief in freedom itself."

-- Milton Friedman

Here's an article on O'Connor's interview with Chris Wallace.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070520/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_o_connor;_ylt=...

I wish she was asked how much weight she gave to stare decisis when she concurred with Kennedy in Lawrence v. Texas, thus overturning a decision which she had earlier supported.

I guess it's not just changing of faces at the court that leads to shifts in constitutional law. Sometimes, it happens when there's a justice who uses the "finger in the wind" method of constitutional interpretation.

while criticism (especially ours ;)) is of course often justified, I don't think we should overrepresent O'Connor as trying to silence us, and I think there's possibly another explanation here we ought to entertain:

since opinion polls (there was a Gallup poll recently linked to at Above The Law that tracked approval ratings by party identification back to early-mid 2000) have shown Republicans anywhere from mildly to significantly more approving of the Supreme Court than Democrats with pretty rare exceptions, and given that the circles she travels in (D.C. Cocktail circuit, etc, to whose pressures and blandishments we fear she bowed) are more likely to be critics from the left, its possible she's trying to shield the Court from critics of things like (and especially) Bush v. Gore at least as much as from critics of Lawrence (to which she only concurred) and Casey, or even Kelo, where she was in the minority on the right side.

our criticism of cases may well not be the (or at the very least not the only) criticism or cases O'Connor is talking about. and the moonbat barking will only increase the more decisions like the (modest) PBA (and we hope, the school aff. action) cases we get. while we think she is talking about us (exclusively; though surely it is true she means us as well), its likley she has a finger on the pulse of something entirely different as well, the alien hatred of the left.

From the O'Connor interview:

"But federal courts, too, play a role in fostering public credibility by generally adhering to "stare decisis," or settled precedent, O'Connor said.

"Obviously, that is a concern," said the Reagan appointee who retired early last year. She responded to a question in a broadcast interview about the public's perception that the Supreme Court based its decisions more on politics than principle and whether that belief undermined the court's credibility.

The law "shouldn't change just because the faces on the court have changed," she said."

I can't help but think that such a plea for the new Roberts Court to follow stare decisis is self-serving. She doesn't want any of her previous 5-4 opinions overturned now that Alito has replaced her. She has already seen one of her precious "contributions" to our legal culture (her abortion jurisprudence in Casey and Stenberg) greatly modified by Gonzales v. Carhart. I'm sure she is very afraid that more of her past opinions are now on the chopping block (especially Grutter).

The link to "email" the uscourts.gov people is on the very front page under 'Contact Us'. I sent your problems with the names into them today. Hopefully it will be fixed soon.

Thanks

Dienekes, it's pretty obvious that she is talking about criticism from the right. She was much admired on the left for moving to their side [if you recall, in the Roberts/Alito hearings, she was the model justice] and maligned on the right for the same reason. She is also referring to people on the like Tom Delay and James Dobson talking about impeaching Kennedy for using foreign law. This is simply a case of a woman who liked to exercise immense power (as THE swing justice) but who didn't like taking any heat for it. She and Kennedy both swung to the left after the liberal backlash that followed Bush v. Gore, in order to reestablish their creds with the NYT and the rest of the liberal elite.

As for stare decisis, BoBo of course is right. She doesn't want her precious precedents overturned (or marginalized) and is using stare decisis to warn them that they will be weakening the image of the court if they do that.

Unfortunately, Roberts and Alito didn't come out in favor of overturning Casey in the abortion case and they likely won't touch Grutter or McConnell even though Kennedy might be on board with ditching both of them.

I should amend the last paragraph to say that Roberts and Alito likely won't overturn Grutter or McConnell. They will almost certainly weaken, if not invalidate, the absurd blackout period of McCain-Feingold.

O'connor is shooting her mouth off to protect her work.

I'll cut her slack, due to Bush v. Gore (which, regardless of how you feel about the case, the effective outcome of the case was far broader reaching than something as small as affirmative action) and the fact that she's no longer on the court.

I'm still surprised she even retired under this President in the first place, but thank you very much Sandy for doing so.

Now if only she could talk to Stevens. I'd cut him some slack as well if he called it quits.

I am already so sick of hearing from her over a year after she left the court. I thank God everynight that Hubbs tricked her and saved us another 10 years from her jurisprudence. As to overturning Grutter and McConnell: Don't be so glum on these. These are not like abortion. They are not nearly as controversial. Kennedy is not with the Dark Side on these. Darth Stevens does not have the force to pull AK over. Roberts will finess the rulings to shred Grutter and McConnell to bits while still appearing to pray at the altar of stare decisis.

no doubt that's true, but I doubt that's all, either.

LMK, that's exactly what I'm saying: it's "obvious" to us because that's what we're familiar with, and what the media highlights in their "look at those crazy right-wingers" analysis. abortion and aff.act. are in the news, so that's what our mind is going to naturally associate with first (and the context our media masters filter it through), and I'm certainly not saying that's not part of it, but don't you think, in her typical "split the difference" approach, she's finding fault with the partisans on the other side too?

I guess what bothers me is when we treat O'Connor as if she were a Warren or a Brennan or a Blackmun, as much as she left to be desired. anyway, she's gone now, so we should let our disappointment go and encourage more O'Connors - from Democrat presidents ;) (which there hopefully won't be any more of for a long, long time)

O'connor doesn't get flak because she was a "moderate" (she is certainly not liberal like Ginsberg).

She gets criticism because:

1. Some of her rulings are asinine. 25 year expiration date, anyone?
2. She was a Republican appointee who continuously drifted leftward, to the extent she and Kennedy overrode their own decisions from the 80s!

Elaborating on that 2nd point, there's a reason the right dislikes Souter more than Breyer, despite their similar jurisprudence. If Souter had a shred of honesty back in 1990, well, Bush 41 would not have even brought him to the White House for an interview.

She is gone now. Let bygones be bygones. We gain nothing from bashing retired or dead justices.

What about Joseph S. Van Bokkelen, the DJ Lugar helped sign, seal, and almost deliver before his seat on the bench even opened up. Is he conservative enough to quality a switch up to 7th? He is nominated for the N-IN right now. Just wondering what you guys thought.

She retired in 2005 under a Republican president and a 55-R Senate and whether it was her choice or Rehnquist "tricked her", I am still grateful that the only way she is annoying us is by giving interviews on Fox News.

Nevertheless, she is following up on her tenure as an awful Supreme Court justice by being an awful ex-justice. Her campaign against judicial intimidation is as asinine as most of her opinions.

I'm not saying she or other judges shouldn't be criticized so long as its responsible and reasoned, I just don't find her a particularly worthwhile target for criticism any longer. we're better served exerting our energies elsewhere.

LMK, that's just silly. she was certainly no model justice, but she was far from "awful", if the word has any meaning. that's the type of exaggeration I'm talking about (but at least it doesn't become bilious hatred and derangement as it would from the left. too much I see our side devolving to that mentality lately, especially against our own, but fortunately not to often here at CT!)

if only we could call her awful, in a relative sense. that would be proof we had a great court. unfortunately with as many truly awful justices as we've suffered, we can't.

I stand by my statement that she was awful. Maybe her voting record was better than that of Stevens or Ginsburg, but her opinions were more muddled and incoherent than those of any other justice.

And here's a great post on Bench Memos about her interview with Chris Wallace.

http://bench.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NzkzMTc3ODU2NmY3NzBlOThhYTk5OWFi...

Money quote: "But no serious person thinks that a single case about which a sound criticism might be lodged, but which was decided in good faith with no sign of corruption, can constitute grounds for impeachment. Whether an entire career as unprincipled and abusive as Justice O'Connor's can present itself as a prima facie case for removal from office is a much more interesting question."

Why should she be given some slack for the decision? The decision was anything but 'far reaching'. It stopped the Constitutional crisis facing the US on that day, but contrary to liberal press saying the Supreme Court 'elected' Bush as president, Bush was duely elected by the people. There was no way Gore would have ever gotten to be president, even with the Florida Supreme Court's inconsistent rulings.

Chris Wallace mentioned that she was sitting on appellate panels. Does anyone know of any panel decisions that she has written?

Texas Supreme Court Chief Justice Wallace Jefferson has been mentioned as a possible nominee for the remaining open Texas seat on the 5th Circuit. Last weekend, he gave the commencement address at South Texas College of Law, and I must say that his speech made me wary of putting him on the 5th Circuit.

His speech was mostly about a rather odd topic considering that this is the 21st Century - it was about slavery. The underlying themes seemed to be 1. There were lots of cases in which the judiciary stood up against slavery, 2. there were policy-based reasons, 3. he liked the outcomes, and 4. he applauded the judges to taking unpopular positions.

All of this would have been fine if he had spent more time on the law, but I found it unnerving how he was so focused on the mere results. There was one story that he told about how a judge who had owned his great-great-great-great grandfather basically told the locals that he believed in their cause, he fought for the confederacy, but he was now sworn to uphold the United States Constitution "which now included the 12th, 13th, and 14th Amendments." That was really the only reference to the law that he made.

I'm afraid that Chief Justice Jefferson would see himself as a moral arbiter on the federal bench, and even though I may subscribe to many of the same moral creeds, it is not the duty of a judge to substitute his morality for the law.

To be clear, he did not explicitly suggest that he would or that a judge should - but it was a bit frighteningly implicit by his omission of legal analysis or criticisms of legal opinions contrary to the ones he was holding out as the correct opinions of the day.

Justice O'Connor was terrific when she was first appointed. At the time, she was arguably, next to WHR, the second-most conservative justice to sit on the Court in decades, and she played a critical role in several areas, including narrowing runaway habeas corpus, reinvigorating federalism, questioning affirmative action and even undermining the doctrinal foundations of Roe v. Wade. Even though she was often unwilling to make sweeping pronouncements in these areas (paving the way for her later betrayals), she without doubt helped set the law in the right direction.

She started to render much more liberal decisions in the early to mid 1990s (either because she changed or because the law just moved too far for her), and her unmoored judicial philosophy of case-by-case pragmatism made it easy for her to switch sides on key cases without any broad repudiation of her past work.

By the time she left the Court, Justice O'Connor was on the wrong side of too many issues. But, even setting aside Bush v. Gore and giving Bush her replacement, the conservative judicial movement owes her a debt of gratitute for her pioneering jurisprudence of the 1980s.

Let's not kid ourselves.

Whether Bush really won Florida or not (and I believe that no election system can distinguish between 600 vote margins out of 6 million voters, or .01%), the Supreme Court effectively sealed the deal.

Gore lost according to his own recount request, but that wasn't known until after Bush took office.

Where is Matthew denouncing SDO as a completely "awful" judge, as bad Marshall or Brennan?

SDO did not believe in "judicial restraint." She saw the Court as a super legislative body, and herself, and her fellow judges as benevolent oligarchs.

According to Matthew's theory, a centrist judicial activist such as SDO is exactly as bad as a liberal judicial activist such as Brennan, or a hypothetical conservative judicial activist.

Somehow, Mathew just fails to make this point again. Somehow, Mathew just happens to make that point when a conservative notes that it is not enough to appoint judges who are restrained, but, it is equally important to appoint judges who will take the conservative decisions in cases properly before the Court that are in genuine doubt.

Why is that?

The country was has a continuous leftward drift precisely because both the liberal and conservative movements have leaders that are far to the left of their respective memberships. The country will only turn to the right when rank-and-file conservatives demand leaders who fight for us, rather than lecture us about how we should shift to the left.

http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletype/archives/2007/05/the_outcome_and.h...

"I think we can now say with even greater confidence that, assuming the race cases are decided by a single majority opinion (as seems likely), the programs are going to be invalidated in an opinion per the Chief Justice."

http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletype/archives/2007/05/todays_opinion_20...

In one of the cases today, Roper v. Weaver, Roberts and Alito split. This time Roberts sided with Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer. Alito joined Scalia and Thomas in dissent.

"Justice Roberts concurred in the dismissal, although he indicated that he did not agree with “all the reasons” given in the per curiam.

Justice Scalia, joined by Justices Thomas and Alito, dissented."

The reason I bring this up is that several weeks ago Alito was castigated by some for several "liberal" votes in opposition to Scalia. Now that Roberts is voting with Kennedy and the liberals, should Roberts be castigated?

In my opinion, it doesn't mean a whole lot. A lot of SCOTUS cases rely on very obscure statutory interpretations that conservatives can disagree on without losing the label of "conservative."

In conclusion, the sky is not falling. Both Roberts and Alito are reliable conservatives that we all can take pride in.

"According to several sources, McCain and Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.) got into a shouting match when Cornyn began voicing concerns about the number of judicial appeals illegal immigrants could make. After McCain swore at Cornyn and accused him of trying to blow up the pact, Cornyn accused the presidential candidate of "parachuting" into the negotiations at the last minute. McCain, who helped craft an immigration deal last year in the Senate but has been represented by staffers in most meetings this year, blew up at Cornyn, saying, "I know more about this than anyone else in the room.""

LOL.

LOL also, at Sandy for 'remembering' the "Impeach Warren" billboards of her girlhood. I caught that when I first read the article on Yahoo last week.

Also, note how she said she "would've preferred serving 2-3 more years". Yeah, right. 20-30 is more like it. God Bless The Chief. I remember criticizing him for not retiring when he first got the bad health news, and especially after swearing in W again. I was 100% wrong.

Silly me, forgetting how wise The Chief truly was. Consciously or not, he handled it all perfectly. Had he not, we'd likely have Wilkinson as Chief & Sandy firmly hunkered down til the end.

Eisenhower, when asked whether he made any mistakes, quipped, "Yes, two. And they're both on the Supreme Court."

I wouldn't be surprised if in a couple of decades, when historians discuss the ACCOMPLISHMENTS of George W. Bush, they'll repeat that quote, word for word.

If there are any conservatives who should be grateful to W., it should be the ones who visit this website.

There can be disagreement between two true conservatives. There are, obviously, disagreements between moderate hyphenated conservatives and true conservatives. There can no agreeing to disagree on whether, or not, Roe was a bad decision, with no basis in the Constitution, that must be overturned at the first possible opportunity!

On that question, whether, or not, Roberts and Alito are "reliable" conservatives is in doubt.

The country was has a continuous leftward drift precisely because both the liberal and conservative movements have leaders that are far to the left of their respective memberships. The country will only turn to the right when rank-and-file conservatives demand leadership committed to conservative victory.

There is no reason for either Roberts or Alito to directly say anything about their true opinions on Roe. To announce that they would help overturn Roe at the present moment could cause huge problems for future Republican nominees to SCOTUS. The Dems would certainly use any statements by Roberts or Alito against Roe to energize their liberal base in 2008. Why needlessly help the Dems win in 2008? If a Dem wins the presidency in 2008, then Roberts and Alito can start talking about Roe. Then it won't make as much of a difference because that Dem president will no doubt get to replace Stevens, Souter and Ginsburg. As long as there is the littlest chance that Bush II might be able to fill a third SCOTUS vacancy in the next 19 months, Roberts and Alito need to keep their mouths shut and their pens silent about overturning Roe.

So I guess we're not going to get our payback judge this month on the CCA after all.

Romney or Fred.

Currently writing non-political stories over at first-cut-stories.blogspot.com

We are on a once-very-other month schedule now for COA nominations:

January - none
February - Randy Smith
March - Thomas Hardiman
April - none
May - Debra Livingston

Leahy has directly said he is opposed to the Republican "talking points" concerning the confirmation of 15 COA judges this congress. Look for only 10-11 confirmations during Bush's last two years.

I'll wait to see if they confirm 2 judges in June before writing any seats off.

The Democrats have supposedly caved on the war timeline bill. We can still press them with success, if only McConnell takes up the fight.

Immigration is going to suck ALL of the oxygen out of the Senate for sometime. I predict that NO judge, not even DJs, will be confirmed until after this horrible bill passes the Senate. Also I have been trying to call SJC Republicans about Keisler this week and all of their lines have been busy. Hmm, wonder why? Anyone else try calling this week?

If the far left and far right combine to kill the immigration bill, could Reid and Leahy blame the GOP and retaliate by going even slower on judges? And if AGAG refuses to resign despite a "no confidence" vote from the Senate, will Leahy and Schumer retailiate against some judicial nominees?

Face facts, the capitulate-for-seventeen-moderate-judges crowd was in complete denial.

The country was has a continuous leftward drift precisely because both the liberal and conservative movements have leaders that are far to the left of their respective memberships. The country will only turn to the right when rank-and-file conservatives demand effective conservatives to run their movements.

Hardly anyone has posted today.

I agree with you that the immigration negotiations have totally sucked all the air out of judicial nominations. I doubt we will hear anything new on nominations until after the Senate passes their amnesty bill.

Would you like to explain your cryptic remark? Your point is not very clear in content but definitely derogatory in tone.

More on McCain:

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/capitol-briefing/2007/05/mccain_misses_42...

One reason for this lack of response is that there have been zero new threads in the past 3 days. Given recent history, that probably indicates that there will be 2 or 3 new threads in the next six hours or so. Is there still a webmaster on this site?

Substantively, I slightly dispute BoBo's theory of alternate month CCA confirmations, although the Dems did manage to get through April without one. There are presently two nominees with hearings (Keisler and Southwick). Dems emulated their April performance by doing nothing after the Southwick hearing on May 10th. There will be only one at most next month, presumably Southwick (but I still believe there will still be ONE confirmation in June).

Not much is happening.

there will be one confirmed next month, and I agree it will be Southwick.

the Dems have never said they would confirm McConnell's goal of 17, so I'm not sure why people insist on saying they have. I DO however think Specter will get the Dems to meet his goal of 15, or very close. A one-per-month rate isn't necessary to meet that, so a "make-up" for the lack of an April confirmation isn't strictly necessary (though one month sometime this year or early next would not surprise me). My guess is we'll get 8 this year and 6 next, for 14 total.

the parenthetical above should read "(though one month with 2 confirmations sometime...)"

"The morons who thought that capitulation in exchange for confirming seventeen moderate judges was a viable strategy were in complete denial!," would be a "derogatory remark."

I made an assessment of strategic competence, sans any "derogatory" comments. The strategy was doomed from its inception. It wouldn't work, since liberals would prefer 17 liberal judges to seventeen moderate one, and it couldn't work
because taking the decision to surrender to liberal ideological obstruction meant there would be no means to fight back if the liberals decided to renege on any commitment they made to confirm those seventeen moderates.

By my reckoning, there has been one CCA confirmation in five months, aside from two non-controversial hold-overs from the last Congress who were held over solely to inflate the current Senate's confirmation score.

If GWB didn't learn the lesson of renominating Barrington and Gregory then he is not a very asute observer of Democratic behavior.

I have more frank assesment of Bush's competence, but I wouldn't want you to label my remarks "derogatory."

The country was has a continuous leftward drift precisely because both the liberal and conservative movements have leaders that are far to the left of their respective memberships. The country will only turn to the right when rank-and-file conservatives demand better leadership as conservative as they are.

He never has anything intelligent to contribute. Responding to him just encourages him.

Whether, or not, my points are intelligent, or lacking thereof, depends a great deal on your point of view. I, likewise, have an overall opinion of the merits of your position.

Unlike you, I prefer to present my points, defend my points, and critize points made that either directly, or indirectly,oppose my position, and allow each and every reader to decide the relative merits of my points against those who argue against me.

Again, if you are pro-life, I don't it is very "intelligent" to believe that it just happened that after appointing seven of the nine Supreme Court justices Roe remains in full effect. I think the "intelligent" position is realize that that wasn't just an accident.

P.S.

Shouldn't Dienekes be demanding that you stop presenting yourself in such a tone?

The country was has a continuous leftward drift precisely because both the liberal and conservative movements have leaders that are far to the left of their respective memberships. The country will only turn to the right when rank-and-file conservatives d

BananaRep,

What precisely did Bush gain by reappointing Barrington and Gregory?

The country was has a continuous leftward drift precisely because both the liberal and conservative movements have leaders that are far to the left of their respective memberships. The country will only turn to the right when rank-and-file conservatives demand real conservatives lead their movement.

We are all idiots. Bob - you are right and we are all wrong. When are we going to learn that bigskybob has the highest IQ of all of us. Afterall, he said he was willing to wager $5000 on it, so it has to be true. None of us are actually conservatives. We are really feminazi communists that have hijacked the conservative movement to appoint progressive liberals to the bench while passing them off as "conservatives". Damn it is too bad that 180 IQ bigskybob has finally found us out. MUHAHA Too late though. The damage we sought to create is already done. The flaming liberals with the names Roberts and Alito have already been installed. There is nothing real conservatives like bigskybob can do now. Roe and all sacred liberal precedents are safe now for at least the next 30 years! The continuous leftward drift of the country will from now on be a hard left turn!

I'd have to agree that 17 is unduly high; two GOP Senates barely averaged that in 2003-2006. That said, I think BoBo's projection of 10-11 is somewhat pessimistic. However, it must be admitted given the results of the last four years, pessimism may be realism. But I'm not yet prepared to fully admit that yet; maybe in a few months if there are more delays. Hopefully there's something more to that position than just being hopeful. Time will tell.

If there is one confirmation each in June and July, that makes 5. One each in Sept,. October, and November equals 8 for the year (with August and December recess months). It's hard to see how there would be more than 5-6 next year unless Senate majority control changes. There's a slight chance we'll get lucky and pick up one more somewhere along the way, though I wouldn't bet on it. According to these figures, there could well be 13-15 confirmations in this Congress, with 13-14 being more probable. So I'll be slightly pessimistic (realistic to a degree?) and predict 13, whle hoping Dienekes' prediction of 14 turns out to be correct.

If "Settled law" Roberts votes to uphold Roe, or avoids taking that vote, then it might very well be thirty years before two of the five pro-Wade justices retire under a Republican President willing to appoint anti-Roe judges, while none of the anti-Roe justices retire under a pro-Roe President or "grow." The damage might very well have been done.

If that is the case, the pro-life movement must begin thinking about the thirty year horizon, and not the next election. Rededicating themselves to electing Presidents who deliberately betray them is the thousand year plan for failure.

The thirty year plan is to realize what has happened and tighten the standards by which a candidate is supported. Claiming to be "pro-life" cannot be sufficient basis for gaining their support. There must be overwhelming evidence that they will invariably appoint judges opposed to Roe.

The country was has a continuous leftward drift precisely because both the liberal and conservative movements have leaders that are far to the left of their respective memberships. The country will only turn to the right when rank-and-file conservatives demand true conservatives lead their movement.

At the risk of getting insulted or relegated to the fringe myself, I have to say, lighten up and let the guy speak his mind.

I have no problem with people that have different opinions. The problem with Bob is that he says things that are not reasonable. They are not based in reason but pure emotional rants. To make matters worse he accuses other writers of 1: not being real conservatives and 2: doing the very thing he does in not basing statements on fact. He just tosses a bunch of big words into his insulting rants. It really adds nothing to this website. His "I'm smarter than you" attitude is something that liberals do. Bob just be straight with us. We all know you are really a kosack in disguise. I would at least respect you if you just admitted that fact and went about disagreeing with us in a normal, socially acceptable way rather than living in a land of make-believe. Honestly, no one is going to ban you if aren't who you say you are. At least you could say what you really think rather than trying to type how one of us red-neck conservatives would think. Bob: it's over.

Here is a nice little ditto jtp7 wrote about me, and rightwingextremist:

"I would first say bob but rightwingextremist is also a candidate. His post on the other thread seems very similar to the incoherent drivel bob has been typing. ... the flaws and horid logic in bob's posts. ... However [criticism of Bob] is falling on deaf ears, as evident by bob's and now rightwingextremist's reply. Man I hate stupid people. I really dont understand why they want to come over hear and bother us. It is obvious that only three posters I can think of agree with them in any way (However, I suspect that one poster might have mulitple screen names.) Go back to redstate or dailykos where you belong."

The hypocrisy is stunning. On one hand, jtp7 claims that it is unacceptable that I refer to some of the posters here as being moderates, yet jtp7 asserts a conspiracy theory that I am really a liberal. On one hand, he claims that I have a "smarter than you" attitude, yet he claims that I and RWE are "stupid," and that he hates our "stupidity."

I would offer the opinion that his little comments above were an emotive "rant," and that jtp7 is guilty of accusing the pot of calling the kettle black.

Again, on liberal websites the venom is directed against posters who are to the right of the average reader. On this website, the venom is directed against posters who are to the right of the average reader. Do you see why the country has a continous leftward drift?

The country was has a continuous leftward drift precisely because both the liberal and conservative movements have leaders that are far to the left of their respective memberships. The country will only turn to the right when rank-and-file conservatives demand principled conservatives lead their movement.

Here's my choice to replace Judge Manion on the 7th if it's not Prof. Anthony Bellia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_M._McIntosh