Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Not One More Roberts or Alito (Leftist Blowhard Upset)
The Washington Post ^ | 6/28/07 | E.J. Dionne Jr.

Posted on 06/28/2007 7:58:01 PM PDT by LdSentinal

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-78 next last
To: squidly

If Bush wants to create a legacy, then he should quit the Amnesty scheme and push for more judges.


21 posted on 06/28/2007 8:22:17 PM PDT by Kuksool
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62
Didn't Fred help select Roberts?


22 posted on 06/28/2007 8:22:48 PM PDT by Donald Rumsfeld Fan (NY Times: "fake but accurate")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: kallisti
Yeah, he didn’t even use a penumbra.

It is amazing how the left's penumbra looks exactly like the communist ACLU playbook.

23 posted on 06/28/2007 8:24:45 PM PDT by OriginalIntent (Undo the ACLU revision of the Constitution. If you agree with the ACLU revisions, you are a liberal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: LdSentinal
Hey Democrats, in case you forgot... to the victor, go the spoils.

Now don't go away mad... just go away.

24 posted on 06/28/2007 8:25:23 PM PDT by Trajan88 (www.bullittclub.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LdSentinal
I agree.

.

.

MAKE IT TWO MORE!!
25 posted on 06/28/2007 8:26:56 PM PDT by elizabetty (Perpetual Candidate using campaign donations for your salary - Its a good gig if you can get it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LdSentinal

Ridiculous column.


26 posted on 06/28/2007 8:27:21 PM PDT by The Ghost of FReepers Past (Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light..... Isaiah 5:20)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LdSentinal
E.J. Dionne does a perfect Barney Frank impression.

Only it is not just an impression.

27 posted on 06/28/2007 8:27:46 PM PDT by OriginalIntent (Undo the ACLU revision of the Constitution. If you agree with the ACLU revisions, you are a liberal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: perfect_rovian_storm
He was asked to lobby on Roberts’ behalf.

Not exactly. He was what is called a "Sherpa" and he helped introduce Roberts to the Senators.
28 posted on 06/28/2007 8:29:09 PM PDT by elizabetty (Perpetual Candidate using campaign donations for your salary - Its a good gig if you can get it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: OriginalIntent

Not to mention the relevence of international law. The ACLU is only one tentacle.


29 posted on 06/28/2007 8:30:05 PM PDT by kallisti (stop making sense)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: squidly
He has done splendidly, although denied his poor choice of Miers and -- I think -- his wish for Gonzales. I don't think we have to worry about ~either~ of them now.

I do suspect though, if he had another pick, it would be somebody who would not make us happy.

I hope the lib justices hang on until after the election. I don't whatsoever concede the White House in 08, and I'd prefer to take a chance that we retain it rather than give Bush another nominee. I have no doubt that he would huddle with Kennedy, Specter, and Graham to find somebody "acceptable."

No one that we really liked could get confirmed now anyway.

30 posted on 06/28/2007 8:33:21 PM PDT by SergeiRachmaninov
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo
I wonder where Dipwad Dionne Jr. got the idea he can dictate how the government is run.

From cocktail chatter with other members of the liberal elite in his neighborhood.

BTW, please pay no attention to the inconvenient fact that he lives in one of the least "diverse" places in the country.

31 posted on 06/28/2007 8:34:27 PM PDT by freespirited (Mr. President, PUT UP THE WALL.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: squidly

Taxes


32 posted on 06/28/2007 8:34:44 PM PDT by bybybill (`IF TH E RATS WIN, WE LOSE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo

Yes, I found some articles saying that Fred was Robert’s “sherpa.” He guided him through the confirmation process.


33 posted on 06/28/2007 8:38:30 PM PDT by Moonman62 (The issue of whether cheap labor makes America great should have been settled by the Civil War.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: LdSentinal
As Norman Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute noted this week in Roll Call, the issue-ad decision demonstrated "not a careful, conservative deference to Congress" but instead "a willingness by Roberts to toss aside Congress' conclusions to fit his own ideological predispositions" -- the very definition of judicial activism.

Maybe conservatives are now able to see those profound meanings emanating from the Constitution's "penumbras" that heretofore were only detectable by liberals.

34 posted on 06/28/2007 8:40:32 PM PDT by Donald Rumsfeld Fan (NY Times: "fake but accurate")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freespirited
BTW, please pay no attention to the inconvenient fact that he lives in one of the least "diverse" places in the country.

Very good point. I'll bet Thomas Sowell will have a column on this next week, I'm anxious to see.

35 posted on 06/28/2007 8:41:15 PM PDT by jazusamo (DefendOurMarines.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

“Liberals NEVER have litmus tests for judicial appointments, eh E.J? Its those nasty conservatives that must be stopped from loading the courts with ideological judges. Why, liberals are just impartial, rule of law-minded and have no ulterior agenda. Yeah, right!”


Way back when, FDR actually went so far as to propose expanding the SCOTUS to 15 members so he could appoint enough lefties to counter the conservative tilt of the court. His plan failed, thankfully.


36 posted on 06/28/2007 8:41:44 PM PDT by Rembrandt (We would have won Viet Nam w/o Dim interference.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: LdSentinal; jude24; P-Marlowe

At this point, I sort of agree with this article. Pres Bush is not going to get a conservative through this Senate. It isn’t going to happen.

He should recess appoint a conservative to serve to the end of the Bush term.

Then the election will determine who gets to make the next appointment. It would be a win/win for conservatives.

First, we know there’s no such thing as a political moderate. Moderate = liberal. Therefore, if we get a liberal from a liberal next President, there’s no difference.

However, if we happen to get a revised Senate and a conservative President, then there’s a ready-made seat on Scotus for them to fill.

JMHO.

Although, the President probably isn’t thrilled about being called a moron by his amnesty foes. I hope he doesn’t take the rhetoric about the amnesty debate personally. “It’s not personal, Sonny; it’s only business.”


37 posted on 06/28/2007 8:46:55 PM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain And Proud of It! Those who support the troops will pray for them to WIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LdSentinal

My goodness, that was fun reading, made my night!


38 posted on 06/28/2007 8:48:16 PM PDT by SaxxonWoods (...."We're the govt, and we're here to hurt."....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xzins
Bush can get another conservative if we hold all 49 Republican senators and that's doable.

All we need is for one Democrat to defect.

39 posted on 06/28/2007 8:49:42 PM PDT by LdSentinal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: LdSentinal
The Senate should refuse even to hold hearings on Bush's next Supreme Court choice, should a vacancy occur, unless the president reaches agreement with the Senate majority on a mutually acceptable list of nominees... it's the Senate's duty to advise and consent on nominees - it would be unconstitutional for them to "refuse to even hold hearings" - but then leftwingers do think the law is to be ignored when it gets in the way of their lust for control and power, right E.J.?!........
40 posted on 06/28/2007 8:49:46 PM PDT by Intolerant in NJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-78 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson