The American Spectator

Reader Mail

(Page 6 of 17)

There is an opportunity here that the Republicans should exploit vis-Ã -vis judicial appointees. The Democrats have been successful in making single point issues a litmus test. Abortion and the environment come to mind. Most Americans are of passing acquaintance with the Bill of Rights.

It would seem reasonable that with the appropriate emphasis a greater case could be made for appointees by placing their Constitutional viewpoints to the forefront. Deemphasize the litmus tests by pointing to the greater danger. Now this might place judges on the bench that might not be in alignment with Republican notions. But I surmise that Republicans would have fewer qualms with such judicial appointments than the Democrats who I assume would have apoplexy over such candidates.

What would be sweeter than Bush standing there stating that without changes the Judiciary has in the past, will in the future, place American's freedoms at risk. It has teeth, has resonance and would sideline litmus test Dems.

p>It's a solution. br> -- John McGinnis br> Arlington, Texas /p> p> Shouldn't Judge Andrew P. Napolitano be a nominee for the Supreme Court? br> -- Pasquale DelVecchio /p> p> DONKEY INFLATION br> Re: The Prowler's

topics:
Education, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Business, Social Security, Abortion, Environment, Hollywood, Constitution, Law, Military, NATO, Socialism, Unions