Reality check!
1 posted on
10/08/2005 3:21:58 PM PDT by
A.Hun
To: A.Hun
GORE: We both use similar language to reach an exactly opposite outcome. I don't favor a litmus test, but I know that there are ways to assess how a potential justice interprets the Constitution. And in my view, the Constitution ought to be interpreted as a document that grows with our country and our history. And I believe, for example, that there is a right of privacy in the Fourth Amendment. And when the phrase a strict constructionist is used and when the names of Scalia and Thomas are used as the benchmarks for who would be appointed, those are code words, and nobody should mistake this, for saying the governor would appoint people who would overturn Roe v. Wade. It's very clear to me. I would appoint people that have a philosophy that I think will be quite likely would uphold Roe v. Wade. Looks like poor ole' Al got himself worried over nothing.
To: A.Hun
I am being from west texas?
3 posted on
10/08/2005 3:25:37 PM PDT by
HHKrepublican_2
(you cant spell liberal without an L an I and an E...If the first ammendment doesnt work, use the 2nd)
To: A.Hun
The vice president and I have a disagreement about the use of troops. He believes in nation building. I would be very careful about using our troops as nation builders. I believe the role of the military is to fight and win war and therefore prevent war from happening in the first place.Reality check, indeed.
5 posted on
10/08/2005 3:30:46 PM PDT by
inquest
(FTAA delenda est)
To: A.Hun
I still love this:
BUSH: Look, this is a man who has great numbers. He talks about numbers. I'm beginning to think not only did he invent the Internet, but he invented the calculator. It's fuzzy math.
6 posted on
10/08/2005 3:32:16 PM PDT by
RWR8189
(George Allen 2008.)
To: A.Hun
GORE: Now, I think we should be reluctant to get involved in someplace in a foreign country. But if our national security is at stake, if we have allies, if we've tried every other course, if we're sure military action will succeed, and if the costs are proportionate to the benefits, we should get involved. Now, just because we don't want to get involved everywhere doesn't mean we should back off anywhere it comes up. I disagree with the proposal that maybe only when oil supplies are at stake that our national security is at risk. I think that there are situations like in Bosnia or Kosovo where there's a genocide, where our national security is at stake there. HA! Genocide in KosovO? We're still looking for the mass graves Mr. Gore. Where was our national security at risk in the Blakans???
Wrong war, wrong place, wrong enemy!
7 posted on
10/08/2005 3:32:45 PM PDT by
Andy from Beaverton
(I only vote Republican to stop the Democrats)
To: A.Hun
As far as I can tell from searching high and low, Gore is the first one to use the phrase "in the mold of Scalia" WRT Bush's promised USSC nominations, using the phrase in a negative way.
President Bush instead promised to nominate sctrict constructionists. He also has praised both Scalia and Thomas. But I haven't found any instances where President Bush, even as Texas governor, used that phrase.
8 posted on
10/08/2005 3:49:55 PM PDT by
savedbygrace
("No Monday morning quarterback has ever led a team to victory" GW Bush)
To: A.Hun
On "Meet the Press" in 1999, the future President Bush said that the justices he most admired were Scalia and Thomas. Bush referred to Scalia during one of the nationally-televised debates as his favorite Supreme Court judge, and the kind he would nominate during his presidential tenure.During a campaign speech, candidate Bush was very clear on the type of judge he would nominate if given the chance: "I'm going to name strict constructionists." Speaking with reporters after the speech, Bush defined a strict constructionist as a judge who "doesn't use the opportunity of the Constitution to pass legislation or legislate from the bench."
"That's going to be a big difference between my opponent and me," he said in a debate against Gore. "I don't believe in liberal, activist judges."
Someone that supports affirmative action, is linked to radical feminists Gloria Steinem and supports Title IX doesn't fulfill that promise.
To: A.Hun
What about Dingell Norwood?
15 posted on
10/08/2005 5:01:38 PM PDT by
dead
(I've got my eye out for Mullah Omar.)
To: A.Hun
What are we doing reviewing algore? Wasn't this like 6 YEARS AGO?????
18 posted on
10/08/2005 7:34:14 PM PDT by
HarleyLady27
(My ? to libs: "Do they ever shut up on your planet?" "Grow your own DOPE: Plant a LIB!")
To: potlatch
20 posted on
10/08/2005 11:04:42 PM PDT by
ntnychik
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson