If you want a Google GMail account, FReepmail me.
They're going fast!
Posted on 10/12/2005 1:53:31 PM PDT by Constitution Restoration Act
Do you think it would be possible to have President Bush arrested, say for spitting on the sidewalk? When the cops want to get a guy really badly, that’s what they do – follow him around until he spits on the sidewalk. Then they arrest him. Or they just lie, and say they saw him spit on the sidewalk. And that’s how I feel right now about the Ivy Leaguer (Yale and Harvard) currently occupying the Oval Office.
Hell hath no scorn like that of a voter betrayed.
I don't think that Harriet Miers nomination was such a dramatic matter so much as she was the straw that broke the camel's back. Reforming the Supreme Court was all that Bush had left. He had fumbled the previous seat with John Roberts, just the sort of respectable conservative who will go along with mushy (socialist) decisions having no basis in the Constitution, and Bush had no intention of doing any better with the next vacancy. He chose Miers because she's an Evangelical -- as a bone to the base -- and a crony. No crony of George Bush will be a strict constitutionalist, because Bush is no more one than Bill Clinton is, his claims to the contrary notwithstanding. Heck, if conservative Constitutional principles, not to mention diversity meant so much to him, he never would have left Miguel Estrada to twist in the wind. That talk about choosing a strict constructionist in the mold of a Scalia or Thomas was just that. You have to keep in mind that this is a man whose idea of a solon, who he really wanted to nominate to the Supreme Court, is Attorney General Al Gonzales, who doesn’t seem to have ever read the U.S. Constitution.
I wasn’t the only observer who not too long ago hoped Bush would nominate Justice Janice Rogers Brown to the court, possibly even for Chief Justice. But no, our Fearless Leader said, ‘To hell with the Constitution!’
After alibiing for him and cutting him slack for four years-and-change, the Miers nomination rubbed conservatives' noses in the crap. It was a personal humiliation, because it wiped away all the makeup that had obscured the true face of Bushism as an unprincipled regime of cronyism and plutocracy. And so, the anger so long suppressed about affirmative action, legal and illegal immigration (particularly his Amnesty plan), spending, big government, his racial pandering/War on Poverty II proposal following the savagery in New Orleans, and a host of other matters is coming out in a package as part of the opposition to Harriet Miers. Some GOP pundits think Bush will be forced to withdraw this nomination, but he’ll do no such thing. He’ll ram it through. And he'd better enjoy it, too, because it's going to be his last bit of fun for a while.
I don't know about you, but I feel like I've been played for a fool by George W. Bush.
Millions of conservatives have to stop identifying with the GOP, and see it merely as more or less useful. That means withholding votes (or staying home on Election Day), voting for candidates from other parties, if they seem more promising (say on immigration), and concentrating on direct, independent action such as local activism, state referenda, and Minute Man-style interventions. Some will doubtless give into the temptation to break their law. After all, Bush called the perfectly legal, not to mention heroic work of the Minutemen “vigilantism,” all the while explicitly condoning and encouraging all manner of illegal behavior. For many, it may also mean tending their own garden, and saying the hell with politics.
Maybe my memory will be washed away in a few years by the treachery of so many later politicians, but the way things look to me right now, I'll never forget the Bush betrayal.
© Copyright 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005 by Magic City Morning Star
(Yet Another) Conservative Group Urges Bush to Withdraw Miers Nomination
(CNSNews.com) - A conservative legal group Tuesday announced it is withholding its support of Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers and called on the president to withdraw the nomination.
The Liberty Counsel said President Bush should keep his campaign promise to appoint Supreme Court justices in the mold of Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. "The only way to remedy a disastrous decision is to redo it," said Mathew Staver, president and general counsel of the group.
"I am terribly disappointed with President Bush's decision to nominate to the Supreme Court someone who operates under the radar. Bush has turned his finest hour into a political debacle that threatens to split his conservative base," said Staver.
"The reverberations from his decision to nominate Harriet Miers have political consequences, if not corrected, that will haunt the Republican Party for some time," said Staver. "I didn't litigate nonstop for five weeks for a stealth nomination.
This is what 'advice and consent' means (Ann Coulter)
I eagerly await the announcement of President Bush's real nominee to the Supreme Court. If the president meant Harriet Miers seriously, I have to assume Bush wants to go back to Crawford and let Dick Cheney run the country.
Unfortunately for Bush, he could nominate his Scottish terrier Barney, and some conservatives would rush to defend him, claiming to be in possession of secret information convincing them that the pooch is a true conservative and listing Barney's many virtues – loyalty, courage, never jumps on the furniture ...
Harriet Miers went to Southern Methodist University Law School, which is not ranked at all by the serious law school reports and ranked No. 52 by US News and World Report. Her greatest legal accomplishment is being the first woman commissioner of the Texas Lottery.
CWA: What We Need to Know About Harriet Miers
“Nothing we have seen or heard establishes Miss Miers' knowledge of and experience in constitutional law. Much is made of her leadership within the American Bar Association, an organization that is hardly known for opposing the ‘living theory’ of constitutional interpretation and judicial activism,” LaRue concluded.
“While we share Miss Miers’ evangelical faith, we find the continual emphasis on it by her supporters to be inappropriate and patronizing,” LaRue said. “It offends the Constitution.”
http://www.mathematik.uni-ulm.de/paul/lyrics/hermanshermits/wonder~1.html
(WHAT A) WONDERFUL COURT
Don't know much judicial philosphy
Don't know much fetology
Don't know much about poly science book
Don't know much about the Con Law I took
But I do know that I trust you
And I know that if you trust me too
What a wonderful court this would be
Don't know much ideology
Don't know much controversy
Don't know much about a paper trail
Don't know what a litmus test is for
But I know that SCOTUS RULES!
And if this one could be confirmed by you
What a wonderful court this would be
I don't claim to be a "stealth candidate"
But I'm trying to be
Maybe my being a " stealth candidate" baby
I can win your trust for me
( Is Harriet really from Alice’s Looking-Glass Land
And on, and on, and on, and on it goes...
Only Rove’s catless grin really knows
What A Supreme Queen of Hearts She May Be! )
You know, I'm getting sick of this crap from both sides.
Bush said nothing of the sort.
He instead says she is an originalist - which means he says that she will faithfully interpret the Constitution.
There is nothing wrong with a sound and reasoned debate as to whether Bush's judgement is sound in that regard, whether Miers is a indeed an orginalist, whether someone who hasn't been a judge is fit to be on SCOTUS, or whether she is the right person for the job.
But we need to return this debate into some level of civility and intellect, because right now, for all the name-calling and piss-poor logic, I can't tell FR from some of the left-wing forums I've posted on.
If you want a Google GMail account, FReepmail me.
They're going fast!
Who is Nicholas Stix?
He had little capital with the conservatives.There is only so many times one can be bludgeoned over the head by big government. We have his back but are ready to walk. The pick was disrespectful to the base. We dont want Ouiji Board picks.
Im a bystander now. Bringing it down a few notches and will to let the history books write that he was tone deaf like his father or a middle to great placeholder President. Which is just sad considering the possibilities.
Ping
Not exactly sure but I believe a former FReeper named "mrustow" used to post articles by him all the time. I could be wrong, but those two names seem to go together for some reason.
If you want a Google GMail account, FReepmail me.
They're going fast!
Um . . . it's a metaphor (and an accurate one).
He runs with that whole Lew Rockwell/Joe Sobran/Paul Craig Roberts/Justin Raimondo/Alexander Cockburn/Patrick Buchanan/Charley Reese crew.
Depending on who they're talking to or posing as on a given day they are conservatives, or palaeoconservatives, or libertarians, or palaeolibertarians, or "market anarchists", or Old Rightists, or Copperheads, or Constitutionalists or what have you.
Stix and his buddies have one goal - to destroy the conservative movement with their carping since they cannot gain control of it.
You need to blame Pres. Bush for this nomination that has split his base and Laura Bush for turning this debate into name-calling (as she did by agreeing with Matt Lauer's loaded suggestion yesterday).
but FR only debates amongst its members they don't riot and burn things-they don't march on washington(they should)-when people like clinton speak they talk for hours and never say anything(worth a s--t) freepers do what GOD intended them to(and the founding fathers) use their brains and if they say something we don't like we can debate it-not like the demos and others
I can't say I care all that much about Meirs, but it's not enough to warrant an estrogen crazed screed either.
Stix used to run a online magazine called "The New Copperhead" or some such rot.
It was just random articles by him about how terrible mainstream conservatives were. It linked to other sites like Wilmot Robertson's Instauration, Jared Taylor's American Renaissance, Sam Francis' site, Paul Ehrlich-related sites, etc.
Ginsberg says she is faithfully interpreting the Constitution.
My point is we need more detail than a couple buzzwords that mean whatever each hearer wants it to mean.
But this talk of the President as an enemy of the Constitution is cheap, lousy character assassination of the most Michael Mooresque description.
I'm tired of the ridiculous hyperbole from anonymous wankers.
I blame the bomb-throwers for the tone of this debate. I will debate the other side in a civil manner if they will do the same. If either side goes too far and tries to start a flame war, I will call them on it. And I encourage other freepers to do the same.
There is a vital discussion to be had here as to the nature of the Supreme Court. Miers IMO is not as bad as her detractors make her out to be nor is she as good as her supporters make her out to be. However, given how badly the jurist mandarins have handled the Constitution in recent years, we should really openly discuss what we believe are the traits we should see in nominees. And that debate is being lost in all the flames.
This sounds so familiar... let's see... where have I heard this before?
"HE BETRAYED OUR COUNTRY"
Wait, I remember... it was that bloviating puffer fish, al gore!!!
LLS
Thank you. Everyone claims to honor Reagan, but they forget his Eleventh Commandment.
And there is a fair debate to be had about what that threshhold is. But we won't get there with hyperbole like we saw with this screed.
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.