The New York Times has a list of ten potential candidates who could be the possible successor to Sandra Day O'Connor.
Samuel A. Alito Jr. - This guy is very similar in ideology to Antonin Scalia and is lovingly called by his peers "Scalito."
Edith Brown Clement - She is a member of the Federalist Society, which is a student organization that challenges "orthodox liberal ideology" in law schools.
Emilio M. Garza - Appointed by Ronald Reagan to the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas.
Alberto Gonzales - This guy is not too fond of the Geneva Convention and supports torture. He once said ""injury such as death, organ failure, or serious impairment of body functions — in order to constitute torture."
Edith H. Jones - Appointed by Ronald Reagan. Has the Texas connection.
J. Michael Luttig - Served has a law clerk under right-wing ideologue Antonin Scalia.
Michael W. McConnell - This loony believes "that the Supreme Court has gone too far in reading the total separation of church and state into the Constitution, and because he...understands that Roe v. Wade has no firm constitutional foundation."
William Pryor - Homophobe. Interestingly, favorite TV show is Queer Eye for the Straight Guy (joke).
John G. Roberts Jr. - Nominated by George Bush to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. Also worked under Ronald Reagan.
J. Harvie Wilkinson III - Supported detention of Yaser Esam Hamdi, an American citizen, who was detained without any charges and was accused of fighting with terrorists. The Supreme Court later overturned his ruling.
All of these candidates have some connection to either Bush, Bush Sr. or Ronald Reagan.
.jpg?t=20120527181101)
Article comments
1 - RJ
"All of these candidates have some connection to either Bush, Bush Sr. or Ronald Reagan."
Think about this for a minute.
[...]
Is that little factoid REALLY all that surprising?
2 - Nancy
As I said Fri., I'll wait until I see the actual list before I start speculating & getting my shorts in a twist. Even then, I'll want to look at their records. I can say at this point what I don't want is someone who's been reversed. THAT is the sign of a jurist who doesn't have a clue about what they're supposed to be doing up on that bench.
3 - neil A. Bancroft
Where do you get the nerve to refer to Michael McConnell as a "loony"? On the two issues you mention he is right as rain. The Constitution does not call for the separation of church and state - - -only a terrible misreading of our Constitution could lead to such a conclusion and then reliance on such a misreading for subsquent opinions. The first amendment to the Constitution is not all that hard to understand
As to the right to abortion, there is Nothing, NOTHING in the Constitution which gives a right to privacy - -the "right" upon the Roe case was settled. No really rational person could find anything like that in that document. What you can find are justices who liked the idea of such a right and then claimed that it is "inferred". If the Court can infer this it can infer anything and our Constitutional government becomes a joke and meaningless.
4 - neil A. Bancroft
Where do you get the nerve to refer to Michael McConnell as a "loony"? On the two issues you mention he is right as rain. The Constitution does not call for the separation of church and state - - -only a terrible misreading of our Constitution could lead to such a conclusion and then reliance on such a misreading for subsquent opinions. The first amendment to the Constitution is not all that hard to understand
As to the right to abortion, there is Nothing, NOTHING in the Constitution which gives a right to privacy - -the "right" upon the Roe case was settled. No really rational person could find anything like that in that document. What you can find are justices who liked the idea of such a right and then claimed that it is "inferred". If the Court can infer this it can infer anything and our Constitutional government becomes a joke and meaningless.
5 - gonzo marx
ok..so neal here denies any Right to privacy, governance of our own bodies, or a separation of church and state
can you say...moonbat?
i knew you could
Excelsior!
6 - td
So are you saying that it is possible to infer from the constitution that church and state should not be seperated. Or are you saying that it specifically states 'church and state should not be seperated.
Or better yet, if inferences and subjectivity is not to be taken into accound when ruling on disputes, why does the supreme court exist in the first place. Why don't they just apply the literal meaning every time.
B
7 - RJ
"So are you saying that it is possible to infer from the constitution that church and state should not be seperated. Or are you saying that it specifically states 'church and state should not be seperated."
There is NO "separation" if you read the actual US Constitution.
I know reading the US Constitution is a tall order for USSC nominees, and especially for Leftists...but it is still a task that should be undertaken...