New Supreme Court Nominee

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - New Supreme Court Nominee

Posted: 9/29/2005 2:43:20 PM EDT

I would love for Janice Brown to be on the SC. I would also love to be a fly on the wall when she and Ginsburg had their first difference of opinion. The tension would be palpable. One thing is for sure, this is not the woman Ginsburg had in mind for the court.

"Ruth Bader Ginsburg told an audience Wednesday that she doesn’t like the idea of being the only female justice on the Supreme Court. But in choosing to fill one of the two open positions on the court, “any woman will not do,” she said.

There are “some women who might be appointed who would not advance human rights or women’s rights,” Ginsburg told those gathered at the New York City Bar Association."

A woman born to poverty in the South who succeeded on her own merits sure isn't "any woman" Compared to her just about any other candidate is.

Posted: 9/29/2005 2:47:44 PM EDT

[#1]

Why does it have to be a woman?

Posted: 9/29/2005 2:48:27 PM EDT

[#2]

There are “some women who might be appointed who would not advance human rights or women’s rights,” Ginsburg told those gathered at the New York City Bar Association."

At least she admits that it has nothing to do with the Constitution, and everything about her own personal agenda in conjunction with the other liberals in this country.

HH

Posted: 9/29/2005 2:51:11 PM EDT

[#3]

Quoted:
There are “some women who might be appointed who would not advance human rights or women’s rights,” Ginsburg told those gathered at the New York City Bar Association."

At least she admits that it has nothing to do with the Constitution, and everything about her own personal agenda in conjunction with the other liberals in this country.

HH

hahaha...owned.

Posted: 9/29/2005 2:53:21 PM EDT

[#4]

Quoted:
There are “some women who might be appointed who would not advance human rights or women’s rights,” Ginsburg told those gathered at the New York City Bar Association."

At least she admits that it has nothing to do with the Constitution, and everything about her own personal agenda in conjunction with the other liberals in this country.

HH

Man that says it all doesn't it.

Posted: 9/29/2005 3:02:21 PM EDT

[#5]

There are “some women who might be appointed who would not advance human rights or women’s rights,” Ginsburg told those gathered at the New York City Bar Association."

WTF? So its perfectly ok for SC justices to announce that they are going to further a political agenda?

Posted: 9/29/2005 3:43:33 PM EDT

[#6]

Quoted:
There are “some women who might be appointed who would not advance human rights or women’s rights,” Ginsburg told those gathered at the New York City Bar Association."

WTF? So its perfectly ok for SC justices to announce that they are going to further a political agenda?

Only if they are liberal.

Posted: 9/29/2005 4:40:10 PM EDT

[#7]

Quoted:
There are “some women who might be appointed who would not advance human rights or women’s rights,” Ginsburg told those gathered at the New York City Bar Association."

WTF? So its perfectly ok for SC justices to announce that they are going to further a political agenda?

Nice to know who the enemy is, ....men...and their dogs....

Posted: 9/29/2005 5:27:15 PM EDT

[#8]

Quoted:
www.drudgereport.com/jb.jpg

I would love for Janice Brown to be on the SC. I would also love to be a fly on the wall when she and Ginsburg had their first difference of opinion. The tension would be palpable. One thing is for sure, this is not the woman Ginsburg had in mind for the court.

"Ruth Bader Ginsburg told an audience Wednesday that she doesn’t like the idea of being the only female justice on the Supreme Court. But in choosing to fill one of the two open positions on the court, “any woman will not do,” she said.

There are “some women who might be appointed who would not advance human rights or women’s rights,” Ginsburg told those gathered at the New York City Bar Association."

A woman born to poverty in the South who succeeded on her own merits sure isn't "any woman" Compared to her just about any other candidate is.

The President will have to grow a pair of new ones to nominate someone like Judge Brown ( I hope he does ) we could only dream of a Justice like Brown but I fear he will cave and try to avoid the fight.

Posted: 9/29/2005 5:38:13 PM EDT

[#9]

Quoted:
Quoted:
www.drudgereport.com/jb.jpg

I would love for Janice Brown to be on the SC. I would also love to be a fly on the wall when she and Ginsburg had their first difference of opinion. The tension would be palpable. One thing is for sure, this is not the woman Ginsburg had in mind for the court.

"Ruth Bader Ginsburg told an audience Wednesday that she doesn’t like the idea of being the only female justice on the Supreme Court. But in choosing to fill one of the two open positions on the court, “any woman will not do,” she said.

There are “some women who might be appointed who would not advance human rights or women’s rights,” Ginsburg told those gathered at the New York City Bar Association."

A woman born to poverty in the South who succeeded on her own merits sure isn't "any woman" Compared to her just about any other candidate is.

The President will have to grow a pair of new ones to nominate someone like Judge Brown ( I hope he does ) we could only dream of a Justice like Brown but I fear he will cave and try to avoid the fight.

+1

Posted: 9/29/2005 5:38:32 PM EDT

[#10]

GW needs to find a Female ( & Black or Hispanic) version of Clarence Thomas--the Dems will go PrimateFecal (ApeSh*t to us common folks), but can't do much but hurt themselves with the hearings...

AFARR

Posted: 9/29/2005 5:48:32 PM EDT

[#11]

Quoted:
GW needs to find a Female ( & Black or Hispanic) version of Clarence Thomas--the Dems will go PrimateFecal (ApeSh*t to us common folks), but can't do much but hurt themselves with the hearings...

AFARR

You just described Judge Brown, she once wrote a paper saying that FDR's "New Deal" was a disaster for America..

Posted: 9/29/2005 6:00:21 PM EDT

[#12]

Quoted:
Why does it have to be a woman?

It doesn't. Nominating a woman just for the sake of nominating a woman is bullshit. If the nominee happens to be a woman, so be it. If not, so be it, as long as the nominee is a good one.

Posted: 9/29/2005 8:13:53 PM EDT

[#13]

Quoted:
Quoted:
GW needs to find a Female ( & Black or Hispanic) version of Clarence Thomas--the Dems will go PrimateFecal (ApeSh*t to us common folks), but can't do much but hurt themselves with the hearings...

AFARR

You just described Judge Brown, she once wrote a paper saying that FDR's "New Deal" was a disaster for America..

I would like her for just that.

Posted: 9/29/2005 8:19:24 PM EDT

[#14]

Just keep this in mind kids:

Stevens, Ginsberg, Bryer, Souter & Kennedy - that's FIVE leftwing Justices that are still on the Court no matter WHO GWBush nominates. THAT is still the majority of the Court.

We need at LEAST two from that list to retire and/or drop dead for us to even THINK about turning the SCOTUS around.

Posted: 9/29/2005 8:22:04 PM EDT

[#15]

How about this guy...

Posted: 9/29/2005 8:27:17 PM EDT

[#16]

Wasn't Ginsburg the one who advocated looking toward foreign law for precedent. Roberts pretty much nuked that approach to jurisprudence during his confirmation hearings. I hope President Bush picks someone who will totally cancel Ginsburg's influence and votes.

Posted: 9/29/2005 8:40:14 PM EDT

[#17]

Quoted:
Just keep this in mind kids:

Stevens, Ginsberg, Bryer, Souter & Kennedy - that's FIVE leftwing Justices that are still on the Court no matter WHO GWBush nominates. THAT is still the majority of the Court.

We need at LEAST two from that list to retire and/or drop dead for us to even THINK about turning the SCOTUS around.

Which makes it all the more important to get someone solid for the court at this opportunity. I'm not all that sold on Roberts, will have to see how he does.

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - New Supreme Court Nominee

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us