To: TigersEye
In a representative democratic republic the President and the Legislature are elected to represent the will of the people. They did and it was overruled on the grounds that it was unConstitutional to do so. Judge Whittemore publicly chastized them on those grounds. That judicial defiance was met with utter silence from the WH and Capitol Hill while Terri still lived. That's not bashing that's a fact
There are some who will not criticize this President, but beyond Terri, Bush has gone the "wrong way" plenty of times. He is Weak on Border Security siding with the foreign potentate Fox, He signed the unconstitutional Campaign Finance Reform bill, he was too weak for recess appointments of judges, his "tax cuts" are a joke, they were simply "credits" for particular people, he continues to suck up to the U. N.
Think I'll log on to FR with a different screen name sometime in the near future, so if you see a poster with the name "FORMER BUSH SUPPORTER" - it could be me. . .
408 posted on
03/31/2005 9:44:46 AM PST by
hushpad
(There can be no Social Security without Homeland Security.)
To: hushpad
It's not just Jeb or George Bush. The Executive and Legislative branches, on all levels, has ceded power to the Judicial branch. It didn't start when either of them took office. They are simply the latest office holders to accept this situation as "Constitutional."
422 posted on
03/31/2005 9:52:09 AM PST by
TigersEye
(Intellectuals only exist if you think they do.)
To: hushpad
There are some who will not criticize this President, but beyond Terri, Bush has gone the "wrong way" plenty of times. He is Weak on Border Security siding with the foreign potentate Fox, He signed the unconstitutional Campaign Finance Reform bill, he was too weak for recess appointments of judges, his "tax cuts" are a joke, they were simply "credits" for particular people, he continues to suck up to the U. N. And how would a President Kerry have been any better on those issues? Would he have been better on border security? Did he oppose CFR or support it even more than Bush? Would he have more tax cuts or tax increases? Would his judges have been better selected? Would he further enable the U.N. or not?
Face the facts. Bush may be flawed, (he is not Jesus Christ after all), but he's by a long shot far better than any other choice we were given in the previous election? Who would you have supported instead? And who will you support in 2008?
471 posted on
03/31/2005 10:20:29 AM PST by
FreedomCalls
(It's the "Statue of Liberty," not the "Statue of Security.")
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson