About time this get more play in the print news..........
1 posted on
05/20/2005 6:28:43 AM PDT by
OXENinFLA
To: Mo1; Howlin; Peach; BeforeISleep; kimmie7; 4integrity; BigSkyFreeper; RandallFlagg; ...
PING...
2 posted on
05/20/2005 6:29:19 AM PDT by
OXENinFLA
("And that [Atomic] bomb is a filibuster" ~~~ Sen. Lieberman 1-4-95)
To: OXENinFLA
She would not describe herself as a 'raving beauty," but she clearly is not "ugly."
3 posted on
05/20/2005 6:30:48 AM PDT by
LOC1
To: OXENinFLA
Mark Levin gets credit for recently bring this to light in his book, "Men in Black."
4 posted on
05/20/2005 6:31:34 AM PDT by
Jack Bull
To: OXENinFLA
>>>>Among those listed as "ugly" was Texas Supreme Court Justice Priscilla Owen
Now isn't that just too sexist!
5 posted on
05/20/2005 6:32:20 AM PDT by
.cnI redruM
("Every man's your brother 'til the rent comes due" - Anon.)
To: OXENinFLA
Coming soon to a theater near you: Richard Durbin as the Man with No Brain, starring in The Stupid, The Bad, and The Ugly. Also starring Ted Kennedy and Chuckie Schumer.
6 posted on
05/20/2005 6:33:13 AM PDT by
puroresu
To: OXENinFLA
Yehhhhhhhhhhhhh wait 'til the Washington Compost and NYT print it.
;-)
7 posted on
05/20/2005 6:33:16 AM PDT by
beyond the sea
(I’m sleeping with myself tonight.........saved in time, thank God my music’s still alive)
To: OXENinFLA
Their strategy is simple, prevent W. from appointing "conservative" judges and especially to the SCOTUS. Alo, because of the stakes, they will do this at any cost, including lying on the senate floor revealing FBI files, and scaring the American people.
8 posted on
05/20/2005 6:33:44 AM PDT by
1Old Pro
To: lonevoice
To: OXENinFLA
Does anyone remember the memo that asked for one of the nominees be postponed until after the Michigan Affirmative Action case was decided. They thought that if he/she was confirmed before the case it would put the opinion in jeopardy. It was a blatent example of outside groups interfering with the rule of law.
I don't think I am dreaming this but I just can't remember all of the details.
10 posted on
05/20/2005 6:43:24 AM PDT by
codercpc
To: OXENinFLA
About time this get more play in the print news..........That bears repeating:
About time this get more play in the print news..........
15 posted on
05/20/2005 6:45:47 AM PDT by
Mister Baredog
((Minuteman at heart, couch potato in reality))
To: OXENinFLA
It not only shows we must win this fight, but must replace RINO'S in primaries. Too much talking not enough action. If there's a compromise over the weekend I'm only going to be able to support challengers in primaries.
23 posted on
05/20/2005 7:06:31 AM PDT by
wmfights
(lead,follow,or get out of the way)
To: OXENinFLA; Salvation; EggsAckley
It appears that the Democrats are flailing away at ghosts, like they are trying to raise the dead. They are not engaged in genuine negotiations over judicial nominations. They want to avoid real negotiations while they posture with negative sound bite clips for the MSM.
Looming on the horizon like black storm clouds is the issue of new Supreme Court appointments. The countdown to major hostilities has just begun. Senate debates will become more shrill in a month because Justice Berger is due to step down. This great jurist has cancer and deserves to retire with dignity knowing that he has a replacement waiting in the wings. In the meantime, the floor of Senate may become bloody from petty back stabbing and noisy name calling.
On a More Amusing Note
I found this conservative web site today by accident because of a rant on the new Star Wars Epic was featured on Google. The site is called Dummocrats and I was laughing at the many funny images posted on it.
24 posted on
05/20/2005 7:07:42 AM PDT by
ex-Texan
(Mathew 7:1 through 6)
To: OXENinFLA
Notice also that it's mainly the women and minority nominees that they want to block. They're o.k. putting through "white" men. If the courts become "diverse" and conservative, that will take away the old canard about conservatives only being angry white men.
Know what I mean?
To: OXENinFLA
[ "Based on input from the groups, I would place the appellate nominees in the categories below," the staffer wrote, listing 19 nominees as "good," "bad" or "ugly." Four of the 10 nominees who Democrats have since filibustered were deemed either "bad" or "ugly." None of those deemed "good" by the outside groups was filibustered. ]
SO THEN.....
If the democrat party deems them GOOD.?.. They are BAD.. AND their nominations should be reconsidered.?.
Sounds logical to me.. Looks like the democrats are very good at determining WHOS a RINO and WHOs NOT a RINO.. The democrats could be a great boost to developing a new GOOD judiciary.. I say USE them for that purpose until they catch on..
33 posted on
05/20/2005 8:59:42 AM PDT by
hosepipe
(This Propaganda has been edited to include not a small amount of Hyperbole..)
To: OXENinFLA
37 posted on
10/01/2018 4:16:41 AM PDT by
piasa
(Attitude adjustments offered here free of charge)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson