namelesstavern.net

Martrae wrote:The Republicans are pissed because she's not a hardline anti-abortionist. They wanted Bush to nominate someone that would possibly overturn or diminish Roe vs Wade.

Personally, I think he's pulling a fast one on the dems. He's nominated someone he knows very well but without a public paper trail and gotten the reps spouting off against her. This makes the dems want to like her. Very slick if you ask me.

Unfortunatly it doens't seem the Dems like her any more then the Reps do. More or less seems that practically no one likes her nomination.

Oddly, most of the dem response I've seen has been moderately favorable. By this I mean I haven't seen full-blown attacks plastered all over the media.

He should have nominated Hillary...

What bothers me most about judical appointments is how political they have become. I, for one, do NOT want an activist judge on ANY bench. It seems odd that Presidents would go about appointing an activist in lieu of a strict constructionist. Judges are there to protect us from the political mess created by our legislature not add to it by creating or ignoring laws in the courts. Who is to say what someone will vote or do in 5-10-20 years from now? At least with someone who follows a very straight forward and plain text document that forms the structure of how we run this country can be counted on to be consistant.
Anyway, here is an excellent article by Ron Paul on this very subject and I encourage you to read it.

http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2005/tst101005.htm

V/r,
Roberto

Aye, I would prefer a strict constitutionalist myself. Someone who believes in the Rule of Law and not mob rule.