Posted on 10/10/2005 7:13:24 PM PDT by birbear
The other day I heard John (The Traitor) McCain carefully explain why he thought it was important that another ream of imflammatory Abu Graib photos be released to the press, even if it meant putting American soldiers in danger. This scum-bag traitor doesn't care about the lives of American soldiers and thinks it's IMPORTANT that we see yet another round of pictures that make the rest of us yawn and make the islamofascist thirsty for more American soldier blood.
And I bet all the other stinking filthy traitor scum-bag RINO's in the Senate agree with John (The Traitor) McCain.
And THAT'S what Bush is up against.
51 Republican Senators?
43 actual conservatives?
or is it 40?
"These very judges already know what is going on, and I believe they don't want any part of it. JMHO."
Conservative Judges don't want to be picked for Supreme Court? That's beyond rationalization. This is getting orwellian.
Because the U.S. Senate is comprised of very mean DUmbocRATs who have laid in wait to Bork anyone on that list, and weak kneed Republicans.
If that wasn't enough the weak Republicans have allowed the minority party to filibuster judges.
This is not only against the constitution, but senate decorum.
The Reps know this has been a deliberate strategy to keep conservatives out of the courts,BUT when the showdown came they BLINKED.
Good Lord they even have the President checking with a bunch of them before he nominates anyone under the guise of "advise and consent".
TOTAL BS, but it's Bush's reality, he has to deal with it.
I have to agree with that.
It'd be hard to get someone confirmed, when the Republican Chairman of the Judiciary Committee opens the hearing with his no vote before any questions are asked. And don't think that he wouldn't do it.
We all knew that Sphincter would be a problem.
I'll bump to that.
Master stroke???
Simple answer: We don't have the votes to break the inevitable filibuster.
Based on the treatment Harriet Miers has received on this very forum and by certain political pundits, would you willingly put yourself through that level of sanctimonious BS? Would you put your family through it?
The pick is unprincipled, IMO, because it ratifies the gang of 14 and undermines the power of the Office of the President v. the Senate.
Anyone know? The sooner we can get Miers talking, the sooner we can move forward - whether it turns out she's a dud or a star. All this idle speculation is taking a toll.
I don't think Bush has ever been afraid of a fight. But the sad fact of the matter is that, in this case, he doesn't have a fight to be afraid of. He can't pummel the RINOs in the Senate into submission, and there is absolutely nothing he can do to sway Democrats hell-bent on blocking any known conservative nomination.
I also agree that Thomas Sowell had the best take on this.
Good column by Sowell. This line: "If the President is right about Harriet Miers, she may be the best choice he could make under the circumstances." threw me though. You'd think having a majority in the senate and the house, and having a republican in the executive branch would be "better circumstances".
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1494400/posts
Owen is Out (Priscilla Owen has withdrawn her name from the process)
Townhall ^
Posted on 09/30/2005 2:31:02 PM CDT by slowhand520
Owen is out Sep 30 2005 12:42 PM
By TimChapman
According to a very reliable source close to the White House vetting process for the next nominee, Priscilla Owen has withdrawn her name from the process.
With Owen out, conservatives have lost one of the better women on the short list.
I don't think the SC is usually picked because the public knows them well or they are popular.
I think for some reason this time conservatives had a "short list" and thought the President would pick from it. The usual procedure is that it's the other way around.
My opinion why he didn't nominate a person who would cause a "fight".
Because the President is a leader and has the best interest of our Country in mind -- when he decided it better to avoid a fight, with all of the mean-spirited questions, etc., which would have taken place with some of the other persons he could have nominated.
I notice it is a trend for fellow conservatives to want to "get down and dirty" and have a real cat-fight with our liberal enemies.
Let's not forget who our REAL enemy is. Our fellow countrymen are not our real enemy. They are our political foes, but what do we gain by beating up on our countrymen.
President Bush is acting presidential, while some of us here in FR are acting no better than our political foes.
"would you willingly put yourself through that level of sanctimonious BS? Would you put your family through it?"
That's irrelevant. The fact is, we have dozens of well qualified conservative lower court justices that are more than willing to go through hell to serve, and Bush just spat in the face of them, and all of us.
Blackmun, Stevens, O'Connor, Kennedy, and Souter were all "well-known conservatives" and all jurists. One definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. From the pool of jurists, it's pretty much a crapshoot.
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.