Can't some of you Republicans come up with your own terms in these matter rather than repeat the talking points such activist judges, Judicial activism, etc. The problem with your party is know one has an original thought. You are like robots repat whatever the RNC tells you to.

It's very disappointing that Southwick was approved. And it shows exactly the reason why we need a democrat in the Whitehouse.

RE: "salvation comes from how each of us treat the hungry, thirsty,naked & the prisoner, Mathew 25,31. "
Posted By sonny c.v.p., la
—–
and - "It's always amusing when liberals like sonny attempt to quote the Bible and then tell us all "what it means" - showing how little they actually KNOW.

Sonny, it is very clear and very simple: Salvation comes simply accepting Jesus Christ as your Savior. All the "good works" done by men are worthless if the acceptance of Christ does not exist in the heart of a believer.

In the passage you are citing, Christ calls on his followers to reach out and help those most at risk: hungry, thirsty, naked, etc."

Sonny from la. and James from Phx, AZ you both get an "A" for effort, but we never hear much from the "Saved by Gracers" about James 2:26 "For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also". In my Bible you need both the Savior and good works. Seems pretty clear to me.

AS for the likes of "Billory Clinton" and others like her, never fear, for Christ will judge them that "honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me." (Mathew 15:8) "Out of thine own mouth will I judge thee, thou wicked servant." (Luke 19:22)

"It is a basic tenet that an individual's exercise of freedom will not also provide an escape of the consequences flowing from the free exercise of such a choice. As with the present situation, the mother may view her decision to participate in a homosexual relationship as an exertion of her perceived right to do so. However, her choice is of significant consequence, as described before in the discussion of our State's policies, in that her rights to custody of her child may be significantly impacted"

James AZ, this is bigotry. You can't deny that this is bigotry. If you attempt to deny it is bigotry, you are a bigot.

Better to allow a Dixie conservative on a "lower-tier" Circuit like the Fifth than on one of the more important ones like the First, Second, Third, Seventh, Ninth or Federal. He's still bound to follow Supreme Court precedents, and that Court will likely review any serious departure from them.

I'm not sure why there is such an outcry over judges that believe the law should be applied by the letter rather than bending it for certain social or "moral" situations. Liberal or Conservative, judges should not have the right to interpret the law according to some personal morality. Would we really have domestic spying or the Patriot Act if judges just followed the 4th Amendment to the Constitution?

Can anyone tell if Moderate is putting us on or did he mean it? Posted By Terry, El Paso, TX

Let me tell you my views on a few issues and let you be the judge.

Iraq war - has gone on long enough, let the Iraqis govern themselves.
Going Green - all for this. Trying to streamline my life to help the environment.
Humanitarian causes - bring them on. As a Christian I feel called to help those in need.
Abortion - morally wrong, enough said.
Gay Marriage - sticky subject, but I got to go with no on marriage, but maybe yes on civil unions (still deciding)

The Democrats in Congress: spineless cowards.

Joe Lieberman: change to the Repubs, you right-wing traitor jerk.

I'm sick of hearing how "eminently qualified" a candidate or judicial nominee is. The only question that matters is, WILL HE UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION?

Allowing some craphead redneck to get away with a racial slur…INTERVENING to get the creep his job back, is NOT what this country is about.

"I'll say a prayer for you today, my friend." - James, Phoenix AZ

Ah, the ultimate insult: to offer to pray for some poster who is a contemptible piece of scum. It's sort of like when the cop hands you the speeding ticket and says, "Have a nice day."

Now how can those of us who do NOT pray match that insult. Let me think…

OK, James of Phoenix, I hope you spend several hours in a library.

"America needs to pad it's benches again with conservative judges, before a devil like Clinton comes into power and sends this nation into moral hell." moderate with morals, Northwest Arkansas

Can anyone tell if Moderate is putting us on or did he mean it?

"Mod. from Ark: According to the WORD of Jesus salvation comes from how each of us treat the hungry, thirsty,naked & the prisoner, Mathew 25,31. In my opinion, the Clinton's, have a better chance of obtaining salvation than any Republican…" - sonny c. v.p.,la.

All of you who are fond of quoting holy books need to realize that only a small portion of humanity agrees with your interpretation. Another Christian would interpret those verses very differently. Christians say the same words but their actions are as different and diverse as any other group. I know that while posting a verse or two, you can feel God's hand on your shoulder while He say, "Atta-boy. Smite the Heathen! You truly understand My Word." However, each Christian hears a different voice.

Why does someone who doesn't like Clinton automatically get put in the Republican camp. I would like to clarify my position and say that I am a proud Independent. By the way right now my vote is with the Obama group. I don't agree with all his views, but can handle him over Clinton any day.

Today I praise congress for appointing a Judge who will uphold the law and not make up it's own.

As for sonny's stance on salvation. That only comes through Jesus Christ, not how much good you do in this world. See John 14 for Jesus' words on that.

Remind me again why a "black caucus" is allowed to exist in a country that frowns on any divides based on race? Also - as a Republican - and watching Lott get emotional - I would like to offer him to the Democrats - he's alittle too Alan Alda for us now…

Right wingers are all incensed when Democrats have concerns over any of Bush's appointments. Democrats have approved more of Bush's judicial appointments than the Republicans did in eight years of Bill Clinton. Orrin Hatch the then chairman of the Senate Judicial Committee publicly declared that NO nominee of Clinton would ever get a hearing while he was chairman. Things got so bad that that Chief Justice Robert Renquist personally appeared before the senate twice to beg them to approve new judges because the bottleneck of cases in the pipleline was so huge and the country didnt have enough judges to hear all the cases. Thanks to the Republicans for that mess.

I am a democrat and I was so happy to finally see a majority for my party in the senate. But, what the heck are they doing. It is like nothing changed. I understand why their approval rate is so low and about to get even lower. My party appears to be full of hot air and empty promises. I am very disapointed in them. They are acomplishing nother. Washington is exactly the same. Come on Dems and make a difference. I am voting for Obama 08 because there are NO other choices (plus I think he is a great candidate) but the Dems need to get their ship out of dry dock and start acting like they are indeed in control.
Obama 08

I noticed the people bashing this nominee have not given one instance of an inappropriate ruling or unconstitutional action by him.

Methinks people are just parroting back far left blog attacks.

The way federal judges are appointed to the bench needs to be drastically changed. It is ridiculous that it takes so long and so much political wrangling no matter what party is in charge of the Senate to get someone confirmed. Democrats bellyache when a nominee is too conservative for their taste; Republicans bellyache when a nominee is too liberal for their taste. Meanwhile, the concept of justice takes a back seat when it should be in the driver's seat. But justice means nothing to our political system. It's all about which bunch of babies shake their rattles loudest. Again, this is what happens when you let juveniles run the show. Are there any adults left?

I'm not sure what some of the posters here have been smoking. To clarify: Republican Presidents tend to nominate judges who believe in following the Constitution, leaving federal and state legislatures to pass the laws. Democrat Presidents tend to nominate judges who engage in judicial activism and try to "enact" laws from the bench, thus avoiding the necessity of legislators having to actually gather support from the citizenry. (As in, "We can't get enough votes in Congress to do what we want, but that's okay, we'll just get a judge to rule for us.")

While you are free to prefer one process over the other, at least get your facts straight: judges don't get to MAKE the laws, they only get to rule on their legitimacy and Constitutionality. It's Congress that has to PASS the laws.

"salvation comes from how each of us treat the hungry, thirsty,naked & the prisoner, Mathew 25,31. "

Posted By sonny c.v.p., la

—–

It's always amusing when liberals like sonny attempt to quote the Bible and then tell us all "what it means" - showing how little they actually KNOW.

Sonny, it is very clear and very simple: Salvation comes simply accepting Jesus Christ as your Savior. All the "good works" done by men are worthless if the acceptance of Christ does not exist in the heart of a believer.

In the passage you are citing, Christ calls on his followers to reach out and help those most at risk: hungry, thirsty, naked, etc. He was NOT calling for a government program! The FACT is - conservative folks in America (of all faiths) give significantly more to charity/churches than any other group. This might come to you as a SHOCK - but "Republican" isn't a religion - it's a political party. Salvation is open to ALL people - including those with cloudy vision such as yourself.

I'll say a prayer for you today, my friend.

Why are only more enlightened (read: "liberal") judges considered "activist" judges by conservatives, but right wingers are saintly "strict interpreters"? All humans have ideologies that influence, in some way, their decisions. This is why moderates are the best for the country.

And what the heck is Trent Lott still doing around? Like Larry Craig, can't we get rid of these clowns?

Speaking of which, I like how a previous poster spouts off about morals and whatnot before "the devil" Clinton ruins things. I guess this person's memory doesn't extend more than a day or so. A typical Republican.

Yep, Trent gets all verklamp when a racist gets a judgeship.

Mod. from Ark: According to the WORD of Jesus salvation comes from how each of us treat the hungry, thirsty,naked & the prisoner, Mathew 25,31. In my opinion, the Clinton's, have a better chance of obtaining salvation than any Republican, including the self proclaimed Christian, George W. Bush.

Once again Hillary and Obama's political divisiveness forces Biden and Dodd to hide while Bush gets his way. What great leaders the DNC has…

Righty: That's why the Founding Fathers created three branches of govt. The legislative branch was known,historically, for being imperfect & capable of passing bad laws on ocassion. Also, being from the South, I've seen racial problems up close & personal. Yes, the south was maligned in the 1960s as Trent Lott suggested. But tackling Civil Rights in the South was literally a war between the Feds. & the Southern States that's still ongoing. This "war" did not have to be, but, down South, many are slow to surrender.

another unelected judicial dictator appointed…they "judge" everyone by their own neo-conservative right wing beliefs and individuals are not allowed to think for themselves just like the republican party…narrow minded hypocrites…

I agree with wufpakmom to a degree. But this isn't the first time Milt Romannoy (sorry, slip of the keyboard) has flubbed Obama's name. It's one thing to say Osama when you mean Obama. But he used his first name in his sentence about Bin Laden and Barack doesn't sound anything like Osama. He should have stopped himself as soon as he said "Barack Obama is rallying Islamic forces, blah, blah, blah." And like I said, it's not the first time Mort Rhomboid (sorry, I made another mistake) has screwed up like this. There's a pattern emerging.

I would like to thank my senator, Sen. Clinton, for voting No against another right-wing activist judge who fails to realize his role in representative democracy - that is, to protect the minority from the tyrany of the majority. That is not judicial activism. Indeed, the only time we hear the republican neo cons complaint of activist judges, is when they don't get their way in a particular case.

America needs to pad it's benches again with conservative judges, before a devil like Clinton comes into power and sends this nation into moral hell.

Dianne Feinstein provided the deciding vote in the nomination last August. I don't see any conection between her and anything remotely religious.

Why is it that everytime there is a nominee who favors judicial restraint (i.e.: wants to let the legislative branch legislate - as per the constitution), it is called extremism?

Democrats had already rejected Bush's first nomination. How much more longer did people expect the democrats to continue blocking Bush's nominations? All the same. If this were reversed (a democratic president with a republican congress), Republicans would reject the presidents nomination lock-step. Not like the current democratic congress, which always seems to split. Even with a majority, democrats can't get their own ducks in a row. Something is wrong at the leadership level.

Once more the Dems cave. Maybe their TV ads should say: WANTED: BACKBONE.

Since when is free speech a "hot button social issue?" I always thought it was a constitutional right in the USA.

If the President and a majority of US Senators voted for this guy, so be it. Although it is near impossible to get rid of the 19 of the senators casting an aye vote, we have the opportunity to elect a new President next year who will care more about the Constitution than about one particular version of the Bible, be it the New Testament, the Old Testament, the Book of Mormon, the Koran or any number of other scriptures that are written based on someone's religious faith vs. the national interest of all.

Bush is knocking off those Clinton appointed activist judges one by one. What a great president. America need legislated laws for the people, not unelected judicial dictators..

I COULD NOT AGREE MORE..WE ARE TOO INTERESTED IN WHAT DOES NOT MATTER. I WORRY FOR US, AS A NATION, AND LOOK AT THE SELECTION OF PEOPLE EITHER APPOINTED OR RUNNING FOR AN OFFICE. I, TOO, FEAR FOR OUR GREAT COUNTRY

Because debating something like this would require looking up facts, and that's hard work. Emotional appeals and name-calling are much easier.

There is one thing more frightening than seeing another another judge who is wholly owned by the narrow, suffocating religious zealots now running this country appointed to the federal bench. And that one thing is the complete indifference to the hijacking of our nation by the general public. Why is this the only response to this story posted? Where is the analysis, the debate, the dialogue? Or are we all too busy decrying Rudy's vote pandering choice of team and savaging Romney for his "accidental" equation of Barack Obama and Osama bin Ladin?

I fear for the welfare of this Republic.

"Some Democrats, including the Congressional Black Caucus, had opposed Southwick's nomination, raising questions over the racial sensitivity of some of his rulings."

—-

Did the Judge FOLLOW the laws and apply the law evenly?

CNN - your article should have read, "Some Democrats, including the Congressional Black Caucus, continued dividing our country down racial lines. Hillary, Obama, and Biden voted NO, giving more lip service yet quietly avoided any attention paid to what LITTLE has been done on their watch for the African American community."

The Words of Martin Luther King:

"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."

Sadly, the Democrat Party opposed Dr King's dream. Instead of looking past the color of skin to find the character of a person - the Democrat Party creates the illusion of overwhelming prejudice and racism, feigning a commitment to fight this strawman.

Funny - these "issues" get great attention once every 4 years when an election is happening. Hmmm, wonder why?