Republican appointees to the Supreme Court are hit or miss. I hold my breath every time a Republican President nominates someone. The Democrats never miss; they make contact every time they swing the bat.
Bork more or less predicted Souters in the future. The "problem" Bork had was over many years on the bench at various levels he had been very prolific. You knew his past and presumably still current views on a host of hot button issues. What you saw was what you got. Luckily, after he was rejected by Teddy Kennedy et al (See Kennedy's great demogoguery doggerel about "Robert Bork's America") The Elder Bush then found Clarence Thomas. The white southern Democrat Senators [we had those back then, kids] who rejected Bork were elated to confirm Thomas despite the swirl of allegations from Anita Hill. There were allegedly other women with axes to bury in Clarence Thomas' back, but the chairman of the Judiciary hearings declined to let those gals testify. Clarence Thomas is the only lasting legacy Joe Biden will ever really have.
Interestingly enough, UT Law has long had Lino Graglia as a great prof and acknowledged legal scholar but he like Bork left a lengthy paper trail, unlike Souter. They can't use what you write against you if you don't write much at all. And yes, Sunnunu etc who touted Souter were not good vetters were they?
A good historical review, Sawgunner, you must be about my age because that all happened during my lifetime.
The question, though, is why do conservative appointees get shot down if they have a revealing paper trail, but the same yardstick does not seem to apply to leftist nominees? In fact, they're paraded about as if they're some kind of hero.
BOBGUTJAHR
Souter also provided a fifth vote for Kelo, which gutted property rights in the name of eminent domain. Under Kelo, presumably, any property could be taken by eminent domain, with state-determined compensation, even for private use, if the government determined such a taking would benefit the government. So, turning your property over to a private company could be justfied by improved tax revenue, which was New London's argument.
Fortunately, almost all the states responded by improving their own takings legislation/amendments.
Scots WhaHae
Hawley is helpful… “Justice Souter was appointed by President George H.W. Bush”
Yes, of course… the “principled conservative” guy people seem to pine for. The “statesman” who spoke so fine & fatherly w/o the bombastic tones of Trump.
“Read my lips” Bush lied… before the former CIA director appointed Justice Souter, who “quickly dashed Republican hopes, siding most of the time with a view of the Constitution that failed to adhere to its original meaning.” Thanks Bush. Well played.
Bush appointed Souter, who “retired at the young age of 69 under Pres. Obama, allowing Barak to appoint Sotomayor to fill his seat.”How nice. Bush also voted against Trump (Rep) for Hillary (Dem) in 2015. How conservative.
“Republicans viewed Justice Souter’s appointment as a chance to move the Supreme Court in a more conservative direction.” But Bush appointed a justice to the court w/ the opposite view. Principled leadership!
“Justice Souter’s most famous / infamous case upholding a constitutional right to abortion… painted a bleak picture of motherhood… pitting women against their unborn children… to obtain an abortion.” But he’s the legal eagle… so, you know: “leave it to the expert.”
Establishment Republican statesmen are “dashers of conservative hope.” The sooner we realize their foil the better bc they don’t have our interests in mind. Connect the dots. See the spots. Follow the leader.
Just as war and peace are too important to leave to the experts (allegedly generals and diplomats) some issues like the rights of an unborn child are just too important to leave to judges no matter how far they've climbed up the greased pole of our legal system.
Republican appointees to the Supreme Court are hit or miss. I hold my breath every time a Republican President nominates someone. The Democrats never miss; they make contact every time they swing the bat.
Bork more or less predicted Souters in the future. The "problem" Bork had was over many years on the bench at various levels he had been very prolific. You knew his past and presumably still current views on a host of hot button issues. What you saw was what you got. Luckily, after he was rejected by Teddy Kennedy et al (See Kennedy's great demogoguery doggerel about "Robert Bork's America") The Elder Bush then found Clarence Thomas. The white southern Democrat Senators [we had those back then, kids] who rejected Bork were elated to confirm Thomas despite the swirl of allegations from Anita Hill. There were allegedly other women with axes to bury in Clarence Thomas' back, but the chairman of the Judiciary hearings declined to let those gals testify. Clarence Thomas is the only lasting legacy Joe Biden will ever really have.
Interestingly enough, UT Law has long had Lino Graglia as a great prof and acknowledged legal scholar but he like Bork left a lengthy paper trail, unlike Souter. They can't use what you write against you if you don't write much at all. And yes, Sunnunu etc who touted Souter were not good vetters were they?
A good historical review, Sawgunner, you must be about my age because that all happened during my lifetime.
The question, though, is why do conservative appointees get shot down if they have a revealing paper trail, but the same yardstick does not seem to apply to leftist nominees? In fact, they're paraded about as if they're some kind of hero.
Souter also provided a fifth vote for Kelo, which gutted property rights in the name of eminent domain. Under Kelo, presumably, any property could be taken by eminent domain, with state-determined compensation, even for private use, if the government determined such a taking would benefit the government. So, turning your property over to a private company could be justfied by improved tax revenue, which was New London's argument.
Fortunately, almost all the states responded by improving their own takings legislation/amendments.
Hawley is helpful… “Justice Souter was appointed by President George H.W. Bush”
Yes, of course… the “principled conservative” guy people seem to pine for. The “statesman” who spoke so fine & fatherly w/o the bombastic tones of Trump.
“Read my lips” Bush lied… before the former CIA director appointed Justice Souter, who “quickly dashed Republican hopes, siding most of the time with a view of the Constitution that failed to adhere to its original meaning.” Thanks Bush. Well played.
Bush appointed Souter, who “retired at the young age of 69 under Pres. Obama, allowing Barak to appoint Sotomayor to fill his seat.”How nice. Bush also voted against Trump (Rep) for Hillary (Dem) in 2015. How conservative.
“Republicans viewed Justice Souter’s appointment as a chance to move the Supreme Court in a more conservative direction.” But Bush appointed a justice to the court w/ the opposite view. Principled leadership!
“Justice Souter’s most famous / infamous case upholding a constitutional right to abortion… painted a bleak picture of motherhood… pitting women against their unborn children… to obtain an abortion.” But he’s the legal eagle… so, you know: “leave it to the expert.”
Establishment Republican statesmen are “dashers of conservative hope.” The sooner we realize their foil the better bc they don’t have our interests in mind. Connect the dots. See the spots. Follow the leader.
Just as war and peace are too important to leave to the experts (allegedly generals and diplomats) some issues like the rights of an unborn child are just too important to leave to judges no matter how far they've climbed up the greased pole of our legal system.
💯