Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"Napolitano’s philosophy generally has a strong originalist bent, while not accepting the limitations of the older types of originalism espoused by Robert Bork and Justice Antonin Scalia with respect to the Constitution’s open-ended provisions like the Ninth Amendment. Napolitano finds such limitations too restricting on a judge’s ability to apply the Natural Law to decide cases where the liberty of the individual is at stake. Napolitano is a strong believer in economic liberties and argues that the decision Lochner v. New York was overruled in error in the West Cost Hotel case, as the Contracts Clause and the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment Due Process clauses protect a sphere of personal economic liberty."
Every single Judge is from Harvard or Yale. Jews, Hispanics, Catholics, Italian, Black, Lesbian.
Seems like the majority race and religion in this country is highly under represented on the Court.
White Evangelical Protestant from a Western Law school.
White Evangelicals are hardly the majority in this country. Maybe in the South, ugh, but certainly not in my neck of the woods or the entire country.
Here you go:
A massive survey by PEW of over 35,000 Americans. Can't get a better and larger survey of Americans and religion than some survey of 2,000 people, etc.
First of all, Christians only make up 71% of US population. Secondly, there are almost as many Catholics as Evangelical Protestant (and that includes African American Evangelicals). And 24% of Evangelicals are racial and ethnic minorities.
Guess what the fastest growing group is? Unaffiliated (atheist, agnostic, or "nothing in particular") with any religion. That group has grown from 16% to 23% in just 7 years(2007 to 2014).
You have no clue what you are talking about. Does the Bulldog in your name have anything to do with the University of Georgia I wonder?
Which is exactly the cohort that Obama would appoint. Therefore, I agree with you- Obama's nominations should be rejected/fillibustered/delayed.
Obama installed a Mexican and a Lesbian. The next nominee would probably be a transgendered, illegal immigrant, Muslim. That would be perfect.
Real nice objective analysis glad you have no say in the next justice, your irrational bias is showing. Filibuster until you can get a white Christian straight justice regardless of credentials.
Sotomayor is an American by the way of Puerto Rican descent.
Obama installed a Mexican and a Lesbian. The next nominee would probably be a transgendered, illegal immigrant, Muslim. That would be perfect.
It may come as a surprise to you that Ellen Kagan was Justice Scalia's first choice to replace Sandra Day O'Connor and suggested to Justice Ginsberg that she make his suggestion know the President Obama. As for the Mexican, she is actually a New Yorican, that is a Puerto Rican born in New York City, the Bronx to be precise but then again all those brown people look alike I suppose.
Not sure if anyone has pointed this out yet, but in a 2005 floor speech in the Senate - recorded in the Congressional Record and therefore not under Copyright protection - McConnell had this to say:
Quote:
Slow walking the process beyond historical norms and engaging in a paper chase simply to delay a timely up-or-down vote are not hallmarks of a fair process. The Supreme Court begins its new term on October 3. As Senator Frist has pointed out, the average time for a nomination to confirmation for the current justices was 62 days. The average time from nomination to confirmation for President Clinton was 58 days. Justice Ginsburg was confirmed in only 42 days. The Senate has 72 days to complete action on Judge Roberts’ nomination, in time for him to join the Court by the start of its new term, October 3. By any standard, that is a fair goal. What is not fair and what is, quite frankly, a little curious is for some of our colleagues who, before even having heard a single word of testimony, have already come up with excuses as to why we should depart from this historical standard. It is disturbing that they seek to justify so far in advance why the Court should begin its proceedings at less than full strength.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
