Skip to comments.
Vote Bush in '04: The Supreme Court is too imporant!
vanity
| 1/29/04
| vanity
Posted on 01/29/2004 11:36:08 AM PST by votelife
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-80, 81-100, 101-120 ... 241-243 next last
To: StoneColdGOP
Thanks to: Trent "Spineless" Lott. And Orrin "Neville Chamberlin" Hatch
81
posted on
01/29/2004 12:25:46 PM PST
by
NeoCaveman
(John Kerry replaces Nancy Pelosi as the botox babe of the Democrat Party)
To: aodell
There's always something that is "too important". I won't be sold a bill of goods anymore. This president is NOT a conservative.
If this president is not the next president the next president WILL be a Liberal.
82
posted on
01/29/2004 12:26:02 PM PST
by
CMAC51
To: Sloth
The only judicial "appointments" the President can make are when the Senate is in recess, and such an appointment is good only for a limited term. The operative term is "nominate," as per your quotation. The same applies for other officers of the country.
Don't let your screen name influence your posts.
To: will1776
Sorry, the Clinton years of hell all run together... And it's not like DOLE was much better!
84
posted on
01/29/2004 12:26:57 PM PST
by
StoneColdGOP
(McClintock - In Your Heart, You Know He's Right)
To: Huck
if Bork had been confirmed instead of Kennedy, Roe would have been defeated...So it's not all Reagan, the Dem Senate Reagan had to deal with forced his hand.
85
posted on
01/29/2004 12:27:02 PM PST
by
votelife
(Elect a Filibuster Proof Majority)
To: sasafras
ping
that's what has me disgusted,
there's no telling what else he would send to the SCOTUS
republican presidents appointed a majority of the current crew and they couldn't get 4 votes to even listen to Silveira and then turn around and ok CFR,
>>shrug<<
r
86
posted on
01/29/2004 12:27:45 PM PST
by
woerm
(student of history)
To: votelife
Thanks for the post.
I've about had it with Free Republic these past few weeks. Today was about as bad as I have seen it. Many so-called Republicans are willing to throw away their vote with the reason being "I'll show him". Yeah, go to DU and they'll make you an honorary member.
I strongly disagree with the President on certain issues. Spending is way out of control. However, I do NOT want to see a President Kerry. A recent Opinion Journal article highlighted that the dems are jumping on the Bush's spending at the same time calling on social programs that will dwarf anything Bush has planned. When this country gets attacked again, when are military is cut again, when we must go to the UN for a permission slip, when taxes are raised, when gay marriage is legalized, when abortion laws are strengthened will those same FReeper still be able to say "I'll show you".
Go ahead and bite off your collective noses to spite your collective long faces.
87
posted on
01/29/2004 12:27:48 PM PST
by
Republican Red
(Karmic hugs welcomed!)
To: dubyaismypresident
George HW Bush gave us nothing. Every last one of the Perot voters knew the consequences of voting for Perot. They knew that they were giving the White House, the House, and the Senate to the Democrats. They had the choice between a moderate and a liberal. They chose they liberal. They gave us Whitewater and Monica. Clinton is nothing but their fault.
88
posted on
01/29/2004 12:28:10 PM PST
by
WinOne4TheGipper
(Appease "my-way-or-the-highway" conservatives. Build new roads.)
To: dubyaismypresident
They're both piles of manure.
Sellouts all.
89
posted on
01/29/2004 12:28:20 PM PST
by
StoneColdGOP
(McClintock - In Your Heart, You Know He's Right)
To: sonofatpatcher2
lovin' it! Then say, "add 4 more years to those ages."
90
posted on
01/29/2004 12:29:22 PM PST
by
votelife
(Elect a Filibuster Proof Majority)
To: votelife
"I feel many conservatives are missing the big picture..."Unfortunately, we do see the big picture. Bush is a socialist. The supreme court hoax was pulled on us the last time around and some arent going to fall for it again.
To: Sloth
None of them were nominated to the SCOTUS, but it is clearly Bush's intention that at least some of them do when the ones currently there croak or retire.
92
posted on
01/29/2004 12:30:26 PM PST
by
WinOne4TheGipper
(Appease "my-way-or-the-highway" conservatives. Build new roads.)
To: votelife
Here's my analogy.
You're hungry, very hungry. You are offered two choices, a thin and watery soup, and a hamburger patty. But what you really want is a T-Bone steak. You really really want that.
Do you turn down the hamburger and go with the terrible soup, simply because the "meat" was not as good as what you wanted?
93
posted on
01/29/2004 12:30:29 PM PST
by
EggsAckley
(..................**AMEND** the Fourteenth Amendment......(There, is THAT better?).................)
To: Sloth
true, but would you rather have a good pick gone bad or a bad pick (lonni guenier) from the get go.
Scalia was a good pick.
Renquist was a good pick.
Thomas was a good pick.
To: looscnnn
1. what do you think Bush could have done to get Estrada confirmed?
2. assuming your strategy worked, how do you think it would have played in the media, ie would the trouble have been worth it for an appeals court nominee?
95
posted on
01/29/2004 12:31:19 PM PST
by
votelife
(Elect a Filibuster Proof Majority)
To: Moose4
Oh, he'll nominate them, all right; his Federal judge picks (Estrada, Pickering, Rogers Brown, etc.) have been very impressive. But unless he can put the squeeze on Frist and Hatch to actually DO something about getting them confirmed, Leaky Leahy and Co. will make sure they never get confirmed.
The Republicans were highly exposed in the last Senatorial campaign and pulled it out thanks in large part to the judge issue. The Dems are highly exposed this time. If one or two of them fall because of the judge issue, the blockade will break whether the Repub's get 60 or not. The Dems know they are exposed again in '06.
Thune beating Daschle is tremendously important.
96
posted on
01/29/2004 12:31:33 PM PST
by
CMAC51
To: will1776
They had the choice between a moderate and a liberal. Moderates and liberals a distinction without a difference.
If Cliton hadn't been a sleaze and a liar, what would have been the diffrence in the canidates?
97
posted on
01/29/2004 12:31:49 PM PST
by
NeoCaveman
(John Kerry replaces Nancy Pelosi as the botox babe of the Democrat Party)
To: votelife
Two reasons to vote Bush - (1) the courts (2) the terrorists.
That's what it boils down to....
Good vanity!
To: Republican Red
*Karmic hug sent*
99
posted on
01/29/2004 12:33:16 PM PST
by
EggsAckley
(..................**AMEND** the Fourteenth Amendment......(There, is THAT better?).................)
To: longtermmemmory
and I'd be out there opposing that one too,
He doesn't think the 2nd ammendment 'confers' and individual right.
bzzzzzt
next..
r
100
posted on
01/29/2004 12:34:26 PM PST
by
woerm
(student of history)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-80, 81-100, 101-120 ... 241-243 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson