Focus
RangerHaaf
I think that he would have appointed several "strict constructionist"
Why? Have any of his nominees been strict constructionists?
Thanks
Tempest, I'd forgotten the name of Reggie Walton, that's the sort of stuff I'm looking for, but none I need more evidence than just that.
GaryH:
Let's ignore the other issues the justice might vote for.
Please stay on topic. Illegal immigration is irrelevent to this post.
Waitone:
Actually I'm very serious, i want to know what evidence there is for or against the belief that he would elect a supreme court justice favorable to the 2nd amendment. Re: AWB I'm convinced that Bush took that position for very, very good political reasons:
1. if he promises to veto it Congress can pass renewal on hopes he won't sign it,
2. at that point the political pressure to do so would be greater.
3. If, instead he promises to sign it, it's smaller on the radar if it gets killed in Congress, no one has to take the heat for it.
Bush needs to be kept away from supreme court nominations.
I need more evidence than that. I
know he's not 100%, or even 90% but I also know he isn't as bad as Clinton. Why? PATRIOT got through, but to date he's not been wielding it like a club. If Clinton got PATRIOT he'd have several gun owners dead or in jail.
RocketMan: Off topic. Evaluate the truth of the statment: "If Bush is re-elected, then he will appoint pro 2A Justices" Whether he is, or is not elected has no bearing on whether or not that statement is true.
BSR: I'm not willing to take that as a given.
Spartacus: They're Socialists, I agree, but that's not the question.
MrApathy: The questions is not whether he is the lesser of two evils, if you think he won't then offer me evidence.
Langenator: Please stay on topic.
-Morgan