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


1 posted on 11/03/2005 9:18:49 AM PST by kingattax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-23 next last
To: kingattax

They can't win so why fight? They'd just look like babbling fools.............But that never stopped them before.........


2 posted on 11/03/2005 9:21:01 AM PST by Red Badger (Whatever happened to formulas 1 through 408?.........)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: kingattax
Georgie nailed them again....

2-0 in the SCOTUS game.

3 posted on 11/03/2005 9:21:39 AM PST by Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: kingattax

It was amazing how Bush worked so hard to avoid a fight with the Dems in making a Supreme Court pick, and when Bush finally comes around and appoints a paper trail conservative, all the Democratic threats seem to disappear. I guess rats do not like the light of day being shined on them.


4 posted on 11/03/2005 9:21:55 AM PST by Always Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: kingattax
Yes, things continue to go bad for the White House, total disarray, capitulation, ruin, economy in tank; Hillary said yesterday the American Health Care System is totally broken. Woo be me, doom, this is hugh!
5 posted on 11/03/2005 9:21:56 AM PST by SF Republican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: kingattax

Like, Duh. But they're telling the wrong "truth". They don't want to set a precedence and have it jammed down their throats when they do have the Whitehouse. It would make them look like "jerks" twice.


6 posted on 11/03/2005 9:23:04 AM PST by Sacajaweau (God Bless Our Troops!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: kingattax

I like the second part of your link:

" Some Republicans point to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton as they question why special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald felt a need to bring perjury charges against ex-White House aide "Scooter" Libby in the CIA leak case.

They note that independent counsel Robert Ray (he replaced Ken Starr) concluded that then-First Lady Clinton made "factually false" statements under oath about her role in Travelgate, but didn't charge her.

In fact, Ray claimed that Clinton had eight chats with top White House aides that contradict her claims of no Travelgate role.

Fitzgerald cites the exact same number of accounts that conflict with Libby's.

There was no basic crime in Travelgate — the Clintons had a right to fire travel staffers.

And Libby isn't charged with illegally outing CIA agent Valerie Plame Wilson, nor does the indictment even claim that she was a covert agent. "


7 posted on 11/03/2005 9:24:25 AM PST by frankjr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: kingattax
But it was a narrow ruling, and the truth is, Dems seem privately resigned that Alito will be confirmed.

ROTF! The Dems' kook-fringe base isn't gonna like that....

8 posted on 11/03/2005 9:24:36 AM PST by mewzilla (Property must be secured or liberty cannot exist. John Adams)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: kingattax
The big question is what will Buzzy and Stevens do when they realize their vote really doesn't matter any more?
9 posted on 11/03/2005 9:24:51 AM PST by gov_bean_ counter (It is easy to call for a pi$$ing contest when you aren't going to be in the line of fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: kingattax
Alito will be confirmed - he's smart, convincing and understands restraint. He's also considered this moment for a long time.

He will be difficult to oppose without sounding like a nut, although that won't stop the left from trying.

13 posted on 11/03/2005 9:27:12 AM PST by xsrdx (Diligentia, Vis, Celeritas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: kingattax

They are more apt to go all out when a true left leaning justice is being replaced with a more conservative leaning nominee. The current replacements won't change the court nor the leanings that much I don't believe.


15 posted on 11/03/2005 9:29:01 AM PST by deport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: kingattax
"So some Dems want to blast Alito on machine guns — he opposed a federal law barring private ownership."

What law banning private ownership? There isn't one that I know of.

17 posted on 11/03/2005 9:30:21 AM PST by moasicwolf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: kingattax
Dems are self-destructive. They'll fight even if it hurts them. They can't help themselves..
19 posted on 11/03/2005 9:32:09 AM PST by skikvt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: kingattax

I would still love to know why the dems supported Alito in 1990.


21 posted on 11/03/2005 9:33:04 AM PST by Calpernia (Breederville.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Coleus

ping


22 posted on 11/03/2005 9:33:16 AM PST by Calpernia (Breederville.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: kingattax
But Americans — by a nearly 3-1 majority — agree with Alito, so the fact that he might shift the court could be a plus.

Anybody who thinks about this law for a minute realizes that the average married woman wouldn't want to secretly abort her child, UNLESS she had a pretty compelling reason (which isn't to say a 'good' reason).

Though I think there is an exception in the law 'if the husband isn't the father (which means she has to certify on some forms in her medical file that she had an extramarital dalliance - private or not, that's a bitter pill to swallow), basically I think that this law was there to undermine married women with with other men's babies in their belly from getting an abortion - it's a 'heads up' to the hubby that he has a bad wife on his hands.

When that's presented to people, most of them probably support sticking it to a bad wife with a problem on her hands, and at least alert hubby that he might consider finding a better wife. That's basically uncontroversial (a 3-1 margin, which is probably a bit understated).

I knew it would be trouble for the dems when their talking point, basically, was 'Can you believe he wants women to let their husbands know she is getting an abortion?' Clearly to me, most people would find this uncontroversial, and the dem exasperation would come across as strangely incongruent, compared to a national sense of values.

That's not to say that most people would support a woman getting permission from her mate (I don't think they would, though it would be close), or somehow reflects an overall mandate against abortion (which doesn't really exist, either).

24 posted on 11/03/2005 9:34:53 AM PST by HitmanLV (Listen to my demos for Savage Nation contest: http://www.geocities.com/mr_vinnie_vegas/index.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: kingattax; doug from upland

http://209.197.89.57/19580222/pop/bozscaggs/Lido_Shuffle.mid


With apologies to ARTIST: Boz Scaggs
TITLE: Alito Shuffle
Lyrics


Alido got the vote that day, The Left attacked!
But that weren't all he got and he ain't gonna' slack!
A Rove planned star and a clueless Card, he made them stop!
Just long enough to grab a headline off the top
Next stop DC town, Alito put the hammer down and let it roll


He said one more Justice ought to get it
One last shot 'fore we kill it
One more for the road!


{Refrain}
Alito, whoa-oh-oh-oh
He's for the money, he's for the show
Alito's waitin' for the go
Alito, whoa-oh-oh-oh
He said one more vote ought to get it
One last shot 'fore we kill it
One more for the road!



Alito be runnin', havin' great big fun, til he got the note
Sayin' toe the line or blow, and that was all Hillary wrote
He be makin' like a beeline, headin' for the Chorusline
Goin' for broke

Sayin' one more hit ought to do it
This Old Court, nothin' to it!
One more for the road!

{Refrain}


36 posted on 11/03/2005 9:40:26 AM PST by Red Badger (Whatever happened to formulas 1 through 408?.........)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: kingattax

`Dems are Wary of Alito Fight'.
How do we know they are `wary'?

Because Reid, Kennedy, Leahy, Pelosi and others have been seen with flowers sticking out of their back pockets.
And why do they have flowers stuck in their back pockets?

Because when the `dust settles' they know they will be wearing their asses for hats.


43 posted on 11/03/2005 9:50:32 AM PST by tumblindice (Socratic dialogue rocks!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: kingattax
Secretly the democrats are probably kicking themselves for not publicly endorsing Meiers much stronger manner than they did.
45 posted on 11/03/2005 9:51:47 AM PST by Preachin' (Enoch's testimony was that he pleased God: Why are we still here?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: kingattax
DEMS ARE WARY OF ALITO FIGHT

I don't think they are. I think they are planning multi-tier strategies to delay, attack and try to sabotage his nomination.

Question: What's the difference between Democrats and pond scum?

Answer: Pond scum isn't as slimey.
49 posted on 11/03/2005 9:54:38 AM PST by DustyMoment (FloriDUH - proud inventors of pregnant/hanging chads and judicide!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: kingattax
Most Americans want legal abortion,

Not true. The best poll I have ever seen for keeping abortion legal is about 50%.

50 posted on 11/03/2005 9:54:41 AM PST by Lady Heron
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-23 next last

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