Assignments Galore...
Yes. An assignment. He put up his short list, but did not finish it. He assigned me to do it. As he put it, "Two of like minds—kindred spirits, some would say—should be able to defend one another."
It is sort of hard to argue that logic. We are of like minds, and like tastes.
Which is why I cannot argue with his second string. As a recap, so no one has to scroll down and refer to his previous post (unless you want to) OUR second "string" of nominees Pres. Bush could pull from include:
Miguel Estrada
Edith Jones
Priscilla Owens
Samuel Alito
Much like the first three he discussed, these three are of like, sound Constitutionally-driven minds. They interpret the Constitution as it was meant to be. There is no interjection of conjecture out of them. They decide cases based on the argument, and what the law says. They do not interpret the law broadly, nor do they interpret it narrowly; neither is productive for the republic.
They interpret the Constitution based on what the Constitution says. As Justice Scalia once stated—and yes, I am paraphrasing here—It means what is says. There is no broad interpretation involved. No questions regarding the Framers’ intents, like the argument for more gun control; The Framer’s never envisioned machine guns. Your point? I am sure you think you have one, but you do not. The Second Amendment specifically cites that we have the right to bear arms. It does not stipulate the sort, but merely that we have the right to own them. The intents are explicit in the Constitution itself. Any further ambiguity should be referred to the Federalist Papers. After all, Hamilton, Madison, and Jay basically penned the document. The Framers not only constructed it, but argued its merits openly to the public.
Each one is the above, and more. Like the original three choices on our list, they each have their benefits beyond their credentials. Owens and Jones are both women, which was a serious sticking point for the Left in the Senate (Specter included) because Roberts was not a female. (I would hope so; his wife might be surprised at this point.) Owens was also directly mentioned in the gang of Fourteen deal, which should give her clear sailing through the waters ahead. The Left was willing to compromise on Owens, and Brown as well, and allow her the vote she deserved. It was not even close.
Estrada becomes a problem, but one that can be handled easily. The Left treated him like crap when he came up the first time, and he eventually withdrew his nomination. But, he is like Roberts in many ways; there is little the Left can truly grasp onto in an open-to-the-public hearing, like Roberts’ was. To go after Estrada over his religion is not exactly the thing a "good" Catholic boy like Sen. Kennedy would like to engage in. Seems a bit hypocritical, does one not think? Estrada was held up over his religion the last time around, and no one was really paying attention then. Should he be nominated, and the Left engage in such vitriolic, partisan attacks, they may end up facing a retaliation from their true base, and could hear the outcry of the Right, as well.
Alito is a stealth candidate from hell. His nickname "Scalito" is one that is true, and not. While he is a dissenter in many cases, and is quick to admonish his colleagues in certain cases, he lacks the cutting wit of Justice Scalia. Alito, like Roberts, worked in the Solicitor general’s office during Pres. Reagan’s administrations. He handled an ACLU case where a town was being sued over it’s holiday display. Alito issued the majority decision stating that because of the other secular symbols and other religious symbols, the town had not violated the Establishment Clause. Bravo! A jurist gets the idea!
In short, these four are on our list for a few reasons. These are just a few. If anyone really wants to have a look for themselves, follow the link below, and scrolls down to the section on the right under "SCOTUS candidates." They are all there, and there are plenty of links to let you check them out yourselves. That is, of course, if you disbelieve what you are reading here. Feel free, but we are sure we are correct.
http://confirmthem.com/
The Bunny ;)
Yes. An assignment. He put up his short list, but did not finish it. He assigned me to do it. As he put it, "Two of like minds—kindred spirits, some would say—should be able to defend one another."
It is sort of hard to argue that logic. We are of like minds, and like tastes.
Which is why I cannot argue with his second string. As a recap, so no one has to scroll down and refer to his previous post (unless you want to) OUR second "string" of nominees Pres. Bush could pull from include:
Miguel Estrada
Edith Jones
Priscilla Owens
Samuel Alito
Much like the first three he discussed, these three are of like, sound Constitutionally-driven minds. They interpret the Constitution as it was meant to be. There is no interjection of conjecture out of them. They decide cases based on the argument, and what the law says. They do not interpret the law broadly, nor do they interpret it narrowly; neither is productive for the republic.
They interpret the Constitution based on what the Constitution says. As Justice Scalia once stated—and yes, I am paraphrasing here—It means what is says. There is no broad interpretation involved. No questions regarding the Framers’ intents, like the argument for more gun control; The Framer’s never envisioned machine guns. Your point? I am sure you think you have one, but you do not. The Second Amendment specifically cites that we have the right to bear arms. It does not stipulate the sort, but merely that we have the right to own them. The intents are explicit in the Constitution itself. Any further ambiguity should be referred to the Federalist Papers. After all, Hamilton, Madison, and Jay basically penned the document. The Framers not only constructed it, but argued its merits openly to the public.
Each one is the above, and more. Like the original three choices on our list, they each have their benefits beyond their credentials. Owens and Jones are both women, which was a serious sticking point for the Left in the Senate (Specter included) because Roberts was not a female. (I would hope so; his wife might be surprised at this point.) Owens was also directly mentioned in the gang of Fourteen deal, which should give her clear sailing through the waters ahead. The Left was willing to compromise on Owens, and Brown as well, and allow her the vote she deserved. It was not even close.
Estrada becomes a problem, but one that can be handled easily. The Left treated him like crap when he came up the first time, and he eventually withdrew his nomination. But, he is like Roberts in many ways; there is little the Left can truly grasp onto in an open-to-the-public hearing, like Roberts’ was. To go after Estrada over his religion is not exactly the thing a "good" Catholic boy like Sen. Kennedy would like to engage in. Seems a bit hypocritical, does one not think? Estrada was held up over his religion the last time around, and no one was really paying attention then. Should he be nominated, and the Left engage in such vitriolic, partisan attacks, they may end up facing a retaliation from their true base, and could hear the outcry of the Right, as well.
Alito is a stealth candidate from hell. His nickname "Scalito" is one that is true, and not. While he is a dissenter in many cases, and is quick to admonish his colleagues in certain cases, he lacks the cutting wit of Justice Scalia. Alito, like Roberts, worked in the Solicitor general’s office during Pres. Reagan’s administrations. He handled an ACLU case where a town was being sued over it’s holiday display. Alito issued the majority decision stating that because of the other secular symbols and other religious symbols, the town had not violated the Establishment Clause. Bravo! A jurist gets the idea!
In short, these four are on our list for a few reasons. These are just a few. If anyone really wants to have a look for themselves, follow the link below, and scrolls down to the section on the right under "SCOTUS candidates." They are all there, and there are plenty of links to let you check them out yourselves. That is, of course, if you disbelieve what you are reading here. Feel free, but we are sure we are correct.
http://confirmthem.com/
The Bunny ;)
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 6:46 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home