Posted on 07/01/2005 7:14:03 AM PDT by SueRae
Hearing on Fox News
J.C. is on a tour here in Oklahoma this summer drumming up support before any announcement. Mary was going to run if J.C. didn't. I heard that from a source that talked to both. Have heard from all kinds of people that are in the know here that J.C. will make the announcement when the timing is right. Almost did it at our OK GOP Convention.
Bam! nailed it! Thanks for making me think of it. :-)
I'm in Boston, and I believe it was the country clubber, "Rockefeller Republicans" that have kept Republicans from gaining a foothold in the Northeast lo these many years. (That's pretty much all we've ever had up here; there are probably exceptions, but I can't think of any.)
drat.
I agree. A major reason I voted for Bush became obvious today.
I voted for President Bush to reshape the political philosophy of the current runaway SCOTUS. I have swallowed a lot of his nonconservative policies because I expected this day to come.
I pray that the upcoming judicial battle will lead to a solid conservative replacing Justice O'Connor. I wish her the best in her retirement, but her time to resign was overdue, IMHO.
I am with you 100% -- McCain will never make it through Republican primaries especially in the south where he is not liked at all. SCOTUS just confirmed that states like mine can keep their close primaries which is a blow to McCain. Still wonder if he was behind the suit here in OK that made it to the SCOTUS. Amazingly, they ruled for Oklahoma's close primary system.
I agree, the implications are enormous.
My heartfelt sympathies.
I didn't hear Warner, but just a little while ago, Harry Reid was on Fox talking about advise and consent and also that he hoped Bush would not be devisive in his nomination.
We just have to send both Granholm and her judge to private practice in 06.
Steve Largent is now a lobbyist, I read recently. Has he ended his political aspirations? His defeat was the biggest surprise of all the 2002 elections in my book -- took things for granted, as they say.
I am 63. The reference to "1973" hit me as a reference to Watergate. It was rude of him to call me ignornant based on my looking at a year, and thinking of Watergate.
Roe Vs Wade is not the most important SC DEcision to some of us. The coup of RN that year and the next was a national trauma that took up most of people's time. It was a televised nightmare from the hearings to the Massacre to the resignation.
Thanks for the defense.
Unfortunately, I don't trust that Bush will nominate a truly conservative replacement. God help us!
I take it you're for a Gonzales nomination then.
*rolling eyes*
Yea, and don't you wish the Republicans would do the same!
The pro-life constituency has been the GOP's most important element for nearly thirty years. Without "Reagan Democrats", the GOP would be non-competitive rather than dominant.
Elementary politics suggests that every once in a while, you have to deliver for your own. Taking pro-lifers for granted at this point is about the dumbest thing the GOP Can do. A GOP which is responsible for putting the homicidal likes of John Paul Stevens, Sandra Day O'Connor, Potter Stewart, William Brennan, Herod Blackmun, David (Confirmed Bachelor) Souter, and Anthony Turncoat Kennedy on SCOTUS to keep the abortion toll rising doesn't need to ask for understanding and patience. It needs to just name the justices who will drive the wooden stake through the heart of the abortion industry, surround its coffin with garlic, douse its corpse in Holy Water, expose the corpse to sunlight and hire Buffy just to make sure.
No more baby-killer "mistakes." No anal marriage "mistakes." No more "whoopsies" of any kind as to SCOTUS nominations. Use recess appointments as necessary and repeat as necessary. Nuke the filibuster.
We need a nominee who can read (the Constitution itself not foreign court decisions or the delusions of Herod Blackmun or the law review articles of Lawrence Tribe) and if such a nominee is confirmed it would be helpful if the new associate justice would actually apply the constitution as written and to refuse to apply parts of the constitution that aren't there at all and never were like homo"marriage" and babykilling and any make-believe "right" of any gummint to violate the Second Amendment RTKBA and any make-believe "right" of gummint to take anyone's private property to give to some other private party as a gummint tax-revenue raising scheme, among several hundred other usurpations by SCOTUS.
If the Senate Demonrats want to get in the way, trample them by any means necessary and by every means convenient and entertaining. Republican "moderates" likewise. Allowing the babies to be saved is the price that the RINO materialists will have to pay to keep their tax cuts secure.
Lest there be any misunderstanding, I have supported Dubya from Day 1 here and will continue to do so but he REALLY needs to deliver on SCOTUS each and every opportunity with an absolute vengeance.
I am not a lawyer, but my understanding is that impeachment is the accusation and preparation of articles of impeachment. The vote is the conviction. An impeachment is sort of like an indictment.
Lawyers?
Ann Coulter, Roy Moore good choices. Oh, Matt Drudge. even Lou Dobbs.
In a perfect world, Bush would swear in the new Supreme Court Justice, Ann Coulter.
(Hey, a guy can dream.)
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.