Tony Perkins Lashes Out at O’Connor
Tony Perkins Lashes Out at O’Connor
Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins — the lead organizer behind the offensive “Justice Sunday” event — has issued a release attacking retiring Justice Sandra Day O’Connor as a “judicial activist” and suggesting his organization’s grassroots supporters are “primed for a fight” over the next Supreme Court nominee.
Perkins’ release notes, “The Family Research Council often found itself on the opposite side of [O'Connor's] most controversial decisions. This past week Justice O’Connor sided with judicial activists and ruled against the display of the Ten Commandments on public property in two cases before the high court that have offended the values of a great segment of the American public.”
Perkins claims he is “confident that President Bush will name a replacement for Justice O’Connor who has the same judicial philosophy as Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, as he indicated he would in his reelection campaign.”
So much for compromise.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
For what it’s worth, I’m a liberal and I didn’t like O’Connor much either…
July 1st, 2005 at 3:17 pmI’m pretty certain that if Jesus came back today one of the first things he do is slap Tony Perkins in the face.
July 1st, 2005 at 3:24 pmThese people say “judicial activist” so much that it doesn’t fool anyone anymore.
All it means is anyone who disagrees with their agenda and actually you know, follows the law.
July 1st, 2005 at 3:39 pmGood one Robert! I wonder if Tony Perkins (Psycho?) would turn the other cheek?
July 1st, 2005 at 4:08 pmThe role of the Courts is to interpret law and define its meaning, not to create law. That was left up to the Legislative Branch in Article 1 of the Constitution. However, I hope that Bush will appoint someone that can represent all Americans, and not someone that will only represent the views or ideas of one particular ideology, i.e, the White Over-class, which Bush represents. Judges should judge fairly and accurately, according to law and in the best possible way for all Americans.
July 1st, 2005 at 4:14 pmNeed to stop wishfully thinking that Bush can be persuaded to nominate a moderate to replace O’Connor – he’ll send up the most redneck conservative religous rightwingnut he can – and gleefully … because he can!
July 1st, 2005 at 4:15 pmI have to agree with Tony Perkins, at least on one ocassion…
July 1st, 2005 at 4:17 pmO’Connor did exhibit the dreadful judicial activism when she voted to stop the vote count in Florida (Gore v. Bush) and thus giving the election to Bush! So, if it weren’t for this judicial activist (along with Thomas, Scalia, etc) we wouldn’t be in this mess today!
I agree with you Lee, he will appoint someone to promote his agenda, but I can still hope that he will choose a moderate. And you’re right Andros, if it wasn’t for the Supreme Court, Al Gore would have been President and maybe he would’ve been re-elected.
July 1st, 2005 at 4:24 pmSo let’s start handicapping. Bush doesn’t seem to know many people, he keeps nominating the same dozen or so for every position.
Donald Rumsfeld would make a good Supreme Court justice, don’t you think? Or maybe that general who said it’s a helluva hoot to shoot them animals in Iraq.
Or Bob Jones. Yeah, I bet it will be Bob Jones.
July 1st, 2005 at 4:36 pmBush has had plenty of time to think about these possibilities. This is going to be a well-planned, orchestrated effort from the right. Watch their talking heads for the next couple weeks. It will reveal their strategy. They’ve already started by painting O’Connor a “liberal!” In my estimate, the rhetoric will escalate and several names of extremists will float around as potential nominees. Those extremely conservative persons will enable Bush to “play fair” and to nominate a less extreme but nonetheless a very conservative judge to the Supreme Court.
July 1st, 2005 at 4:38 pmOf course, American Taliban stalwart Perkins believes that the judicial filibuster is “an attack against people of faith.”
July 1st, 2005 at 4:57 pmSo let’s start handicapping. Bush doesn’t seem to know many people, he keeps nominating the same dozen or so for every position.
Donald Rumsfeld would make a good Supreme Court justice, don’t you think? Or maybe that general who said it’s a helluva hoot to shoot them animals in Iraq.
Or Bob Jones. Yeah, I bet it will be Bob Jones.
Comment by cynical ex-hippie  July 1, 2005 @ 4:36 pm
Oh come on now! It has been obvious for a quite a while. Who is the one member of the Bush administration who carried his water perfectly, but left after the first term? Can you say “His Honor, Associate Justice John Ashcroft”? Heck, he even has (lousy) judicial experience, not that that makes any difference to Smirk-Boy.
July 1st, 2005 at 6:38 pmTime to retrieve the litmus paper …. Oh? There is no litmus test? My bad … [gag]
July 1st, 2005 at 7:26 pm“Let the leeeeeeeeegal briefs soar! Like they’ve never sooooaaaaaaaared before…”
July 1st, 2005 at 8:10 pmMoonbat central, where the brigades form up. I’im gonna love this place :D
BWUAAAAAAAHAAAAAHAAAHAAAHAHAHAHAHAAH
July 1st, 2005 at 9:00 pmThe battle lines are being drawn, unfortunately.
It is just too bad that anybody who tries to please both sides will end up being quartered by partisan, snarling beasts.
It’s the administration’s turn to play another wild card, don’t you think?
July 1st, 2005 at 9:08 pmDo you really think Bush is going to make the decision of who is nominated?
Bush is a walking talking puppet of the radical right who does as he is told by the old guard hard-core conservatives.
The evangelical christian conservatives had a collective orgasm this morning when O’Conner announced her retirement.
Republican Christmas on July 1st. Ho Ho Ho.
Remember, the Bush Adminstration needs a good fight over this to take the publics mind off the disaster in Iraq and social security reform which is DOA.
If you think things have been messy and nasty so far, you ain’t seen nothing yet!!
Ann Coulter has probably been spending the day winding her panties so tight that her eyes are bulging out and she would eat her own young if it wasn’t conservative enough, if she is actually capable of having children.
We’re off to the races.
July 2nd, 2005 at 1:53 amReligion will not play a role in this appointment.
Who will ammend the constitution allowing a presidential third term?
That’s who gets the job folks.
Get busy and get this madman out of office before he can legitimately run for a third term.
votetoimpeach.org
July 2nd, 2005 at 2:29 amFor what its worth, I would love to see GWB be able to run for a third term. The guy barely got elected last term and you don’t really think he has gotten more popular do you?
When the 2004 elections were held some republicans still liked him a little. Now nobody likes him. My republican friends cringe everytime he has to speak publicly. I am quite sure at this junction he is the most unpopular president we have ever had. And there is no possible way that anybody could name a president who has had less accomplishments (simply because you can not have less than zero). Nixon would beat him.
July 2nd, 2005 at 7:28 amIn fact, please, please, please let him run. I am still dying to see him debate Wes Clark.
July 2nd, 2005 at 7:30 amCome on you guys, if Bushie runs he will win. He has Deibold on his side. This isn’t a joke, you let him on the ballot and were all screwed for another decade or more. Saddam Hussein ruled for 3 decades and so will Bushie if you allow him.
July 2nd, 2005 at 10:39 amEven more interesting was a comment from the judge that was passed up for Scalia, on O’Connor. Said she was a swing judge – whichever way the others were going, she was going to go the opposite direction. Sounds like alot of sour grapes out there for Justice O’Connor……..oh and Bushes short list was based on The Lead Justice Renquist retiring – so everyone on that list is male. It’ll be interesting to see if that list of names changes to include any potential females judges????
July 2nd, 2005 at 12:41 pmThe little dust up over lower court appointments was a useful exercise. It made it perfectly clear to Republicans that their core supporters will abandon them if they do not follow through with getting Bush’s nominee’s confirmed. Both Graham and Mike DeWine, where hurt in their home states politically for their little foray into the world of RINO politics with McCain. Bush could nominate Genghis Kahn for real and the Republicans in the Senate would have no other choice but to make sure he is confirmed. The Democrats aided by the MSM will whip the moonbat base into a frenzy, it will all be for not. Whomever the nominee is will go through a bloody battle, but the end is not in doubt. Mark my words
I just came across this:
[quote]senators Lindsey Graham, Mike DeWine and John Warner won’t agree to go nuclear if Democrats attempt to filibuster a mainstream conservative is correct, then the battle over the Supreme Court nominee is going to look like a second-grade schoolyard fight compared to the thermonuclear fallout that will come down on those three from the GOP base.[/quote]
Read the whole thing here
[url=http://hoystory.blogspot.com/]
Hoystory.com[/url]
Getting originalist judges appointed to the court is for many Conservatives the only difference between the two national political partys. If the Republicans fail to deliver then they are in real trouble. The Republicans would then be in trouble not from the fevered mind nonsense that is part of the swamp gas where you moonbats reside. The GOP base would insist on a party purge, Russian style.
July 2nd, 2005 at 3:03 pmI am ashamed that Tony Perkins is from my state. Follow this link and learn what type of person that Tony Perkins is:
http://maxblumenthal.blogspot.com/2005/05/bad-cop-check-out-my-latest.html
July 2nd, 2005 at 3:53 pmMake no mistake, Perkins, Dobson, Falwell, Robertson, Kennedy, Sheldon and the other leaders of the religious Reich have as their target repeal of the First Amendment to the Constitution.
They want Justices who will overturn a long list of decisions regarding school prayer, display of religious icons and a host of other items.
They’ll attack the freedom to marry, freedom of speech and freedom from religion until they are blue in the face.
Once the theocracy is established, they will rule with an iron hand.
I pray (*ahem*) that the day never comes when it will be necessary for defenders of the Constitution to arm themselves and eliminate the enemies who would destroy our national charter.
July 2nd, 2005 at 7:51 pm“Make no mistake, Perkins, Dobson, Falwell, Robertson, Kennedy, Sheldon and the other leaders of the religious Reich”
The religious Reich? Don have you ever heard of Godwin’s Law? I suggest you look it up. It will help to expalain why your arguments fall on deaf ears, and convince no one.
July 2nd, 2005 at 9:45 pmCameron, your ignorance is showing. Might I suggest covering it up with an American Flag and the Ten Commandments? Perhaps you should learn to read lips?
July 3rd, 2005 at 12:58 pmGotta love those religious fruitcakes, especially when they start pushing the GOP into a corner.
July 3rd, 2005 at 1:32 pmNo doubt Bush will receive tremendous pressure for the religious right monsters ie: Dobson, Perkins, etc. etc..
If he really wants to leave a legacy of being “uniter not divider”, then he could & should appoint a moderate, not some religious crazy as the aforementioned clowns want….I know people who voted for Bush & they hate the religious right, as do I…..They voted for him on non-social issues…..The religious right is a fringe & extremist group & if Bush caters to him with his appointment, then shame on him……
By the way, Justice O’Connor was a moderate….She sided on some liberal issues, BUT was also the 5th. vote in the Florida recount that gave Bush the presidency, so anyone who thinks O’Connor was a liberal justice is a fool……
July 3rd, 2005 at 2:02 pmMcGarrett,
I think the term defining O’Connor is “more liberal than…” or “liberal tendencies”. Hey, nobody’s perfect!
July 3rd, 2005 at 4:59 pm“Make no mistake, Perkins, Dobson, Falwell, Robertson, Kennedy, Sheldon and the other leaders of the religious Reich�
The religious Reich? Don have you ever heard of Godwin’s Law? I suggest you look it up. It will help to expalain why your arguments fall on deaf ears, and convince no one.
Comment by Cameron
Godwin’s law was invented by neo-nazis. Erwin’s law trumps Godwin’s law.
… As long as you continue to tar social democracy with all the crimes of communism, I feel equally entitled to tar the free market with the crimes of slavery, segregation, colonialism and genocide; piss me off and I’ll add fascism and the Nazis.
July 4th, 2005 at 9:33 amGreg Erwin
Getting originalist judges appointed to the court is for many Conservatives the only difference between the two national political partys. If the Republicans fail to deliver then they are in real trouble. The Republicans would then be in trouble not from the fevered mind nonsense that is part of the swamp gas where you moonbats reside. The GOP base would insist on a party purge, Russian style.
This moron would be on the side of the loyalists, the tories, in the first American revolution, and he doesn’t even realize that he is on the losing side in the current American revolution. Not one of the founders, were they here today, would advocate “originalism” in anything. They were radicals and revolutionaries. They were liberals, even the socially conservative ones. like Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and George Washington. Why don’t we rate decent. well read trolls here. I take your presence as an insult to the importance of the site.
July 4th, 2005 at 9:44 am