Supreme Court Sweepstakes--Who's in the Running


PDA






Waitone
June 27, 2005, 04:20 PM
First comprehensive listing of the candidates I've seen.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/2005-06-26-judges_x.htm?csp=N009

If you could design your perfect SCOTUS judge and assume (yea, I know) he/she would operate as designed once seated, what would be your design parameters? I specifically refer to the second amendment since it is no doubt on the target list for future erasure.

If you enjoyed reading about "Supreme Court Sweepstakes--Who's in the Running" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
rock jock
June 27, 2005, 04:44 PM
Top candidate for an opening is AG Alberto Gonzales.

Bush can't wait to make Hispanics happy by appointing one of their own to the SC. The Dems will love him - he's very "moderate". :barf:

El Tejon
June 27, 2005, 04:54 PM
How about El Tejon? He looks WASPy, but he has a Hispanic name. :D

MudPuppy
June 27, 2005, 04:54 PM
"Bush can't wait to make Hispanics happy by appointing one of their own to the SC."

You make it sound like that's a bad thing--if the guy is qualified, then why wouldn't an elected official try to serve the wishes of significant portion of his constituency?

Biggest problem with that list is there's too many politicians and judges listed and no citizens.

HankB
June 27, 2005, 05:06 PM
I have some diverse choices for SCOTUS appointments . . . preferably to replace the five who gave a green light to rich developers to bribe . . . errr, I mean, CONVINCE . . . local governments to steal private land on their behalf. None stands a snowball's chance in you-know-where of being nominated, but just off the top of my head, here are my suggestions:

* Ann Coulter (Supports the 2nd, hated by liberals)

* Condi Rice (Strong supporter of the 2nd Amendment)

* Walter Williams (Conservative/libertarian, believes in liberty)

* Joe Olsen (Law professor out of MN. Saw him on a TV debate - articulate and VERY "Pro-2nd")

* Ron Paul (Congressman from TX. Basically a Libertarian, but runs as a Republican. Believes in the Constitution.)

* L. Neil Smith (Libertarian author of some very pro RKBA novels.)

* Suzanna Hupp (TX legislator, survivor of the Luby's massacre. Actively pro-RKBA, and pretty good on other issues.)

* Michelle Malkin (Actually believes our borders ought to be secure.)

And one more . . . wait for it . . .

* Michael Savage (Just to give liberals a heart attack) :evil:

Of course, the Bushmen haven't asked for my opinion . . . :rolleyes:

dolanp
June 27, 2005, 05:12 PM
Those 5th circuit candidates look alright. We can probably spare them. ;)

lostone1413
June 27, 2005, 05:20 PM
You really think he will appoint anyone who cares about our freedoms? Look what he has done sofar to our freedoms. Friends like GWB think we need enemies? Sorry I even bothered to vote to be honest

Yowza
June 27, 2005, 05:23 PM
If we could clone Clarence Thomas a few times, I'd be happy with that.

Rick

rhubarb
June 27, 2005, 05:35 PM
I wisht it would be Janice Rogers Brown, the good woman just appointed to the DC Appeals Court. Here's a quote of hers from this speech:
http://www.communityrights.org/PDFs/4-20-00FedSoc.pdf

Of course, given the vision of the American Revolution just outlined, you might think none of that can happen here. I have news for you. It already has. The revolution is over. What started in the 1920's; became manifest in 1937; was consolidated in the 1960's; is now either building to a crescendo or getting ready to end with a whimper.
...
Where government moves in, community retreats, civil society disintegrates, and our ability to control our destiny atrophies. The result is: families under siege, war in the streets, unapologetic expropriation of property, the precipitous decline of the rule of law, the rapid rise of corruption, the loss of civility and the triumph of deceit... Emphasis mine

So there are eligible people in the court system. Let's find them and demand that they be considered for Supreme Black Robe.

R.H. Lee
June 27, 2005, 05:41 PM
How about El Tejon? He looks WASPy, but he has a Hispanic name. I don't think so, based on his pro immigration stance alone.

My choice would be Bork, a strict constructionist.

El Tejon
June 27, 2005, 05:53 PM
Riley, darn it! I've been Borked by being "pro immigration." :D

rock jock
June 27, 2005, 05:56 PM
if the guy is qualified
He's not. That's the problem.

Standing Wolf
June 27, 2005, 08:22 PM
My choice would be Bork, a strict constructionist.

He'd have been a better Supreme Court justice than...

Ah, never mind!

SIOP
June 27, 2005, 09:33 PM
Even a rudimentary familiarity with the U.S. Constitution will no doubt be an automatic disqualifier. Wouldn't want to have anyone sitting on the Supreme Court who's actually read the thing.

Justin
June 27, 2005, 09:37 PM
My choice would be Bork, a strict constructionist. The man who doesn't believe you have a right to privacy? Bah.

R.H. Lee
June 27, 2005, 09:41 PM
The man who doesn't believe you have a right to privacy? Bah.
He's in good company then, with George Bush and the majority of congress who voted for the Patriot Act(s), not to mention the 5 SC justices who don't think you have a right to private property, either.

stevelyn
June 28, 2005, 01:24 AM
Bush isn't going to nominate anyone who may rule against, McCain-Feingold, PATRIOT, the War on (some) Drugs and numerous other items on his list of things to strip from the Constitution and BOR.
IOW don't get your hopes set too high and you won't be disappointed.

beerslurpy
June 28, 2005, 01:43 AM
Another vote for Janice Rogers Brown.

She is like the 2nd coming of clarence thomas, only more eloquent and more outspoken.She is unapologetic in her restrictive views on takings and her hatred of collectivism and she would make an incredibly good justice.

Read her Federalist Society speech "A Whiter Shade of Pale"

Is she not awesome? Beleive! (http://www.constitution.org/col/jrb/00420_jrb_fedsoc.htm)

A taste for before you click:
Ayn Rand similarly attributes the collectivist impulse to what she calls the "tribal view of man."14 She notes, "[t]he American philosophy of the Rights of Man was never fully grasped by European intellectuals. Europe's predominant idea of emancipation consisted of changing the concept of man as a slave to the absolute state embodied by the king, to the concept of man as the slave of the absolute state as embodied by 'the people' i.e., switching from slavery to a tribal chieftain into slavery to the tribe."15

Democracy and capitalism seem to have triumphed. But, appearances can be deceiving. Instead of celebrating capitalism's virtues, we offer it grudging acceptance, contemptuous tolerance but only for its capacity to feed the insatiable maw of socialism. We do not conclude that socialism suffers from a fundamental and profound flaw. We conclude instead that its ends are worthy of any sacrifice including our freedom. Revel notes that Marxism has been "shamed and ridiculed everywhere except American universities" but only after totalitarian systems "reached the limits of their wickedness."16

"Socialism concentrated all the wealth in the hands of an oligarchy in the name of social justice, reduced peoples to misery in the name of shar[ed] resources, to ignorance in the name of science. It created the modern world's most inegalitarian societies in the name of equality, the most vast network of concentration camps ever built [for] the defense of liberty."17

Revel warns: "The totalitarian mind can reappear in some new and unexpected and seemingly innocuous and indeed virtuous form. []... [I]t ... will [probably] put itself forward under the cover of a generous doctrine, humanitarian, inspired by a concern for giving the disadvantaged their fair share, against corruption, and pollution, and 'exclusion.'"18

Of course, given the vision of the American Revolution just outlined, you might think none of that can happen here. I have news for you. It already has. The revolution is over. What started in the 1920's; became manifest in 1937; was consolidated in the 1960's; is now either building to a crescendo or getting ready to end with a whimper.

The very words from her mouth! Are you not in love?

FireBreather01
June 28, 2005, 01:46 AM
Anyone like Bork, Thomas, Scalia, Rehnquist. The rest of them are worthless socialists, if not worse.

rock jock
June 28, 2005, 02:09 AM
Bork would be one of the best justices this country has ever seen.

beerslurpy
June 28, 2005, 02:20 AM
Bork would have been... Bork is a lot older now than he was in 1987. He is nearly 80 now and would not likely last very long in the big chair.

It's a shame we got Kennedy instead of Bork in 87. What a waste of a seat.

Thomas was a miracle when you look at everyone else who got nominated in the past 20 years.

RangerHAAF
June 28, 2005, 08:22 AM
If I had to bet, my money would be on Luttig from the 4th circuit for the first vacancy. He's been put on the fast track for a long time and he's been personally affected by violent crime. He should be chosen to help return the court to it's roots of interpreting what the Constitution says, not legislating from the bench.

After Luttig is in I'd go for Garza or Gonzales and finally Janice R. Brown 2-3 years from now or maybe Mark Pryor.

If you enjoyed reading about "Supreme Court Sweepstakes--Who's in the Running" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!