Sir, you and I both know the Demacrats don't ask this class of
questions to shed light on any particular issue but rather to embarrass
and impugn the integrity of these nominees.

If anyone is attempting to
impose a judicial litmus test on these SC nominees, clearly it's the
Demacrats.

It's now their de facto position that NO Supreme Court decision they
like, especially Roe v Wade and Sodomy rulings, shall ever, ever be
changed or altered under Stare Decisis. They aim to institutionalize
their liberalism through the courts, to effect sweeping social changes
they know the people would never effect through their respective state
legislatures or the U.S. Congress.

X-No-archive: yes

editor@netpath.net wrote:

Biden should quit being so lazy. He's never heard of Google, Lexis,
Nexis? If any nominee had even done so much as written something crazy
in law school, he could find it - the same way that conservatives
forced the Klintons to pull a Justice Dept. nominee over her crazy
law-review writings.

Sir, you and I both know the Nazicrats don't ask this class of
questions to shed light on any particular issue but rather to embarrass
and impugn the integrity of these nominees. If anyone is attempting to
impose a judicial litmus test on these SC nominees, clearly it's the
Nazicrats.

Your reading Joe Biden through your foggy Republican colored lense.

All of his past court decissons have been reviewed by Biden and others. what
he is asking is what are his 'presernt views" on key issues and the
candidate is just dodging the issues.

Stating that these issues may be bfore the court in the future is just pure
legerdemain.

On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 00:15:52 GMT, Jerry Okamura wrote:

Well, it seems to me these Senators only have themselves to blame. If
the
nominee just makes one small mistake, and if those who oppose the nominee
can, they will bury the guy or gal who is before them......

That can be the result of partisan nomination.

What gets me is that this bob- 'n'- weave business makes a mockery of the
approval produre, and is therefore contemptuous of it, as well as the
Judiciary Committee, the Senate and the Constitution, which mandates the
procedure.

And the right thing to do would be to vote on that ground alone against
any
nominee that doesn't open up about his personal philosophy, where he
thinks
it's affected his rulings, how he's had to rule against it on such- and-
such occasions, and so on.

I mean, every judge is going to have to rule against the grain on
occasion.

It comes with the job, assuming one is interested in doing the job.

OTOH, any judge who is a member of the Federalist Society should be voted
against, too, due to the profound disingenuousness (at best) of that
Society.

That Society always whines about how it's just a forum for the airing of
conservative ideas that the liberal bias of academia suppresses, but never
seems to give any examples of responsible conservative ideas that the evil
liberals suppress.

And its "King Charles' head" seems to be the rejection of Bork, claiming
that his being an up- front conservative what was sank him, although what
sank Bork, long before he made it to before the Committee, was his being
Nixon's hatchetman at Justice in "the Saturday Night Massacre", the firing
of the original Watergate special prosecution team, Bork being Solicitor-
General and thus number three man at Justice at the time, and the
Attorney-
General and Assistant Attorney- General having already resigned rather
than
agreeing to do so.

--

Nothing so illuminates the end as the means.

And the means is frequently the real end.