Comment: We should have known, shouldn't we?

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: WHITE WASH!!! (see in situ)

We should have known, shouldn't we?

I'm just the average American working every day for the last 40 years. I wish "We the People" would open our eyes and see what's happening. I've been concerned about all the presidential nominees to the SCOTUS until I realized, they are all going liberal on the bench at strategic times. I looked at the history such as Eisenhower's appointments, and then Reagan's. They get to the bench and want to make some sort shock to the world. Even dead, Eisenhower's still shaking his head over his appointments to the bench i.e., Earl Warren and William Brennan.

There has to be a discerning and study in the selection to try and avoid the abandonment of principle done by the justice once on the bench, i.e. Souter, Roberts.

I remember Howard Phillip's rigorous objection to Souter's nomination while everyone else had been praising that same nominee.

Phillips was also skeptical about the Roberts nomination. Yet, to watch someone you appointed truly turn on you would be so so hard to take. So many Republican appointees turned out to be unfriendly to the true conservative constitutional cause.

Howard Phillips' on Roberts, - " People say you can't tell how a Supreme Court nominee will turn out once on the bench. I respectfully disagree. In most cases, it's very clear. I opposed the nomination of Sandra Day O'Connor ....I opposed David Souter because I read his senior thesis at Harvard...he's a legal positivist....he rejected all higher law theories, such as those spelled out in our Declaration of Independence....I testified against Ruth Bader Ginsburg ... She saw the Supreme Court as a Supreme Legislature...She was on the far Left of virtually every issue. Yet, only three members of the U.S. Senate voted in opposition to her confirmation. Only eight voted in opposition to Breyer. With respect to Judge Roberts,...It is clear that while he claims to have no overarching judicial philosophy he does have a point of view on most of the big issues. But that point of view is overshadowed by his pragmatism and his desire to stay within what is perceived as the mainstream."

He (Phillips) added that “It is another example of how Judge Roberts seems to go out of his way to pander to those on the Left who might otherwise oppose him.”

“We do not need another Anthony Kennedy, Sandra Day O’Connor, or David Souter,” said Phillips

Another interesting statement, " I respect the fact that Bush did some serious study before he nominated Roberts, and, from a political standpoint, it's a brilliant appointment. But, there are two kinds of leaders, one is a leader who is willing to go for the very best and is willing to get only 51 percent. There's another kind of leader who makes preemptive concessions so that he can get 85 percent support. Bush is an 85 percenter. Those 51 percent battles are hard to win, but they're worth winning."

Phillips apparently wanted someone better than Roberts and expected that there would be a fight for it to get it done. I guess this is one of the situations, "the best is the enemy of the good". They settled for good ol' Roberts. I would like to have seen the names of them on the best list.

These quotes of Phillips were during the nomination process of Roberts.

It appears that Mr. Phillips was right again.

I found the following four part interview with Mr. Phillips very good read. Check it out.

Have a blessed day.

The night is far spent, the day is at hand.
And those who have not heard shall understand.