Posted on 07/01/2005 7:14:03 AM PDT by SueRae
Hearing on Fox News
Why fired? Don't make her a recess appointment. 'Sides, she's already approved to some extent...Dems said so. ;)
I don't forget it. And I have bad feelings toward "social conservatives" for that reason.
From what I understand there is no law against talking to anyone. Keep you friends close and your enemies closer. It has been posted several times lately that he is not presently a member of La Raza. I do not want him for legitimate reasons not impugning his patriotism.
I believe Bill can't have any dealings with the Supreme Court.........forever. Part of his last day in office legal package.
One down, five to go.
I don't think he's a lawyer. It's not required that a justice be one, under the constitution, but there's never NOT been a non-attorney on the SC.
Those men are both oustanding. It's not like people of that caliber are just lying around waiting to be snatched up.
The Dutch could announce today that Natalie Hollaway had run off to Venezuela to wed Osama bin Laden, they are honeymooning in Yemen, and no one would care..
Rats!
I am sick of all the talk about moderates.We must have a conservative in there!! This is to important.
So when men are replaced by women on the SC it thereby alters the gender makeup of the bench forever?
I don't think so.
I thought it was Warren Rudman, ex RINO Senator from NH.
What I meant, was social conservatives helped get bill clintnon in office. They are fickle if you ask me.
I listened to Nina Totenberg on NPR on the way to work this morning. She sounded disoriented. You might even say, "deeply saddened." She said she heard the rumors of O'Connor's impending retirement but didn't believe them.
Oh phooey, Arlen Specter has to make a mad dash to a microphone. He would LOVE to be on the SC...so would Orin Hatch.
Did I say that? Another allegation without proof. No, I didn't love 41. I did prefer him over Clinton, but nearly anyone was preferable.
But don't say my criticism of him is without merit.
I stated your allegation was biased to reflect against 41 and 43 but conveniently ignore Reagan
I bet you were one of the ones here citing "strategery" during the CFR debacle, mocking those of us who knew what would happen.
Another unbased allegation. Maybe I'll take you seriously when you respond with fact. I wasn't on this board when that passed.
His son has been better to conservatives in some ways, but I say again, he and the Senate WILL cave.
And one of those ways has been on Judicial appointments. My problem with you is that you base your prediction on "feelings" rather than fact. I haven't argued against your assumption of the Senate. The failure to pass through judges or break the filibuster gives concerns there validity. The problem is that Bush has been rock solid and yet you disparage him on this issue. Until and IF he fails on the issue of judges, your opinion on his "spine" over this issue is without merit.
Actually, it should be noted that the reason Bush 41 couldn't keep his "no new taxes" pledge was his utter incompetence as a leader. He never served in any kind of executive capacity before he ran for President in 1988, and he pretty much won that election by default. I really liked the guy, but I'm the first to admit that he was in way over his head.
The biggest lesson that George W. Bush learned from his father is that a Texas rancher comes across as a far more effective leader than a limp-wristed New Englander.
No recess until an up or down vote!
Pryor is not conservative enough for me.I think we should keep looking.
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.