Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Reversing the Bork Defeat - (Bill Kristol has this one nailed cold!)
WEEKLY STANDARD.COM ^ | JULY 1, 2005 | BILL KRISTOL

Posted on 07/02/2005 8:04:07 PM PDT by CHARLITE

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-60 last
To: moog
Everybody uses political labels today. It's the thing to do.

Standard propaganda tactics. There are still a few stubborn holdouts who will recognize it for what it is and make a conscious attempt to refrain from engaging in it. To quote Rush "Words mean things." Throwing around labels that can't be objectively justified isn't helping. This is our government, not Sweeps Week.

41 posted on 07/03/2005 6:42:37 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Gondring

"Is there any reason Bork cannot be nominated?"
Bork is 78 years old.


42 posted on 07/03/2005 6:44:59 AM PDT by kellynla (U.S.M.C. 1st Battalion,5th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Div. Viet Nam 69&70 Semper Fi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: MJY1288

One thing McConnel would have, though, is the intellectual firepower to re-shape the court or at least to give it intellectual power. That is what I think he should look for: the "X" court. It needs to be a leading decision maker and a leading force for constitutionalism a counter just a stron gas the "Warren Court" and a worthy successor to the "Rehnquist court"- even if only in dissent.

You obviously know about these guys...what about some of teh bigs on the 7th circuit? What about...the Posner court? How old is he? I know he might be seen as a bit too libertarian...but he certainly would have done us right on the takings case.

If you counter that by putting on someone like Noonan on the 9th (?) and maybe McConnell (for an associate position), then, though none of them are Robert Bork, they will be good, solid justices and more constitutional than not...and they can back it up with intellect approaching Scalia.

I sure wish someone would ask MY opinion on this.....

What do you thinK?


43 posted on 07/03/2005 6:49:40 AM PDT by ConservativeDude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE

From what I've learned so far, "I Like Luttig."
How's that for a campaign slogan? :-]
Now, I guess we'll see if GWB has the stones to nominate a conservative.

Semper Fi,
Kelly


44 posted on 07/03/2005 6:51:19 AM PDT by kellynla (U.S.M.C. 1st Battalion,5th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Div. Viet Nam 69&70 Semper Fi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: moog

Nominate Ann Coulter, just for the entertainment value


45 posted on 07/03/2005 6:55:32 AM PDT by SauronOfMordor (When peace stands for surrender, fear, loss of dignity and freedom, it is no longer peace.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: SauronOfMordor

"Nominate Ann Coulter, just for the entertainment value"

I have a better one, Mark Levin!!!

You want entertainment? Levin would "shock & awe" the entire American media and electorate.

the Lefties in the Senate would have to wear a helmet and flak jacket to face Levin! LOL


46 posted on 07/03/2005 7:02:11 AM PDT by kellynla (U.S.M.C. 1st Battalion,5th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Div. Viet Nam 69&70 Semper Fi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie
Conservatives need to start reminding the public that Republicans confirmed Ruth Bader Ginsburg

I think so too but they won't. Everyone involved tries to hide the elephant in the living room -- the fact SC appointments have become brazenly political and partisan. The Orrin Hatch types even swallow the myth that liberals somehow have a "right" to mau-mau "extremist" Republican appointments. At least they won't face that lie head-on. I think the two biggest problems for conservative appointments are named Hatch and Specter.

47 posted on 07/03/2005 7:07:18 AM PDT by Bernard Marx (Don't make the mistake of interpreting my Civility as Servility)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Bernard Marx
I think the two biggest problems for conservative appointments are named Hatch and Specter.

I can't say I disagree with you. This campaign has to be run from the White House. Therefore, I am not hopeful. Bush's history of backing up his nominees sucks, bigtime.

48 posted on 07/03/2005 7:09:32 AM PDT by Carry_Okie (There are people in power who are truly evil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Gondring

Alas, I fear he is too old. Too bad.


49 posted on 07/03/2005 7:16:05 AM PDT by Dawgreg (Happiness is not having what you want, but wanting what you have.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE
Correct.........but I would personally LOVE to see Bush appoint Luttig to take O'Connor's place and then Janice Rogers Brown as Chief Justice.....within HOURS of receiving Mr. Justice Rehnquist's notice of retirement!

BUT... it would be far better to elevate Justice Thomas to Chief, but for now, to appoint Mrs. Brown. With her recent confirmation, the Dimwits will be hard pressed to make a case against her. At that point, place Luttig before the Senate...

Justice Thomas has established his credentials, and clearly would be a slap at the Dims... as a trump card!


50 posted on 07/03/2005 7:16:31 AM PDT by pageonetoo (You'll spot their posts soon enough!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: kellynla
I have a better one, Mark Levin!!!

Did you see Levin talking to Alan Colmes the other night? Colmes played a tape of Pinky Reid and Fats Kennedy rattling their sabres, and Colmes asked him, well, what do you think of that, Mr Levin?

And Levin said, "Harry Reid and Ted Kennedy? Who cares what they think?"

I loved it...!

51 posted on 07/03/2005 7:17:36 AM PDT by THX 1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: BOBWADE

Gonzales doesn't twang my buds. I'm not too up about him being AG either.


52 posted on 07/03/2005 7:17:47 AM PDT by Dawgreg (Happiness is not having what you want, but wanting what you have.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie
Bush's history of backing up his nominees sucks, bigtime.

Again we agree. For me this is his ultimate test. If he goes squishy on this one I'm afraid I'll turn into a political spectator instead of participant (i.e. voting, contributing). This is the last inning of the last game of the World Series and it's no time for phony bipartisan "comity."

53 posted on 07/03/2005 7:18:12 AM PDT by Bernard Marx (Don't make the mistake of interpreting my Civility as Servility)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE

we've got to put as many solid conservatives on board as we can. the democrats' strategy is to get bush to appoint a kennedy.

the democrats are expecting hillary in 08,

and then every liberal will retire during her tenure,

stacking the court for decades.


54 posted on 07/03/2005 7:20:49 AM PDT by ken21 (it takes a village to brainwash your child + to steal your property! /s)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kellynla

Oh it's nice to dream. I would love to see Levin in front of the Senate.......he'd chew em up and spit em out! *~*


55 posted on 07/03/2005 7:22:18 AM PDT by Dawgreg (Happiness is not having what you want, but wanting what you have.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: SauronOfMordor

Nominate Ann Coulter, just for the entertainment value.

Now that would be FUN to see. Imagine the debate on that.
Now, what if Rupaul became a Republican? Would he/she switch genders halfway through a case?


56 posted on 07/03/2005 7:26:12 AM PDT by moog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Bernard Marx
I think the two biggest problems for conservative appointments are named Hatch and Specter.

They went to the mat for Clarence Thomas.

57 posted on 07/03/2005 7:31:29 AM PDT by FreeReign
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: FreeReign
They went to the mat for Clarence Thomas.

We'll see. I hope they have at least two more fights left in them.

58 posted on 07/03/2005 7:53:39 AM PDT by Bernard Marx (Don't make the mistake of interpreting my Civility as Servility)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
Everybody uses political labels today. It's the thing to do.

Standard propaganda tactics. There are still a few stubborn holdouts who will recognize it for what it is and make a conscious attempt to refrain from engaging in it. To quote Rush "Words mean things." Throwing around labels that can't be objectively justified isn't helping. This is our government, not Sweeps Week.

You've hit a nerve with me on this one (not saying that in a bad way). Simply state, I like politics, but not "politics." I'm getting tired of the name-calling and dirty tactics. For me it's say what you mean and mean what you say. If you have to namecall, then you do neither. I don't like people "playing games" in politics or in real life. I get along wonderful with blunt people who can always be depended to tell you what they're thingking. I don't get along with arrogant people at all (because I'm so humble--not).

My parents taught me and my siblings to treat others like you want to be treated. We got our mouths washed out with soap if we even uttered one bad word. And insulting Mom was out of the question as we found out soon enough from Dad's swift hand on the few occasions it happened. I just don't understand it being so widespread. They even had a kids' reality show where they engaged in Survivor-like tactics (except the nakedness).

Speaking of survivor, I stopped watching it after the first two editions. Yet, two characters stand out to me--Rudy, the old guy from the first one who could be counted on as sticking to his guns and expressing what he was thinking AND the minister dude from the second one who was always doing something and encouraged others to play the game as "honorably" as they could.

I wrote a letter to the Democratic Party to protest Kerry's f-bomb in a public forum. All I got back was a list of times W had done it. I thought that was pretty childish--"he did it, so I can too." And then a little while later, the f bomb came from Cheney (whom I respect a lot except for this one instance). AAARRRGH!

While I have seen far more on the Democratic side, such is not limited to them, especially in my Republican state. The state senator in our area waged a big campaign against a state representative (who was a pretty good conservative) because he hadn't supported him on a bill and a couple of other issues. He used every dirty trick in the book, but the guy still won. Another Republican group actually called up people and told them to vote for the Democrat. Luckily, negative campaigns usually lose here, but it doesn't stop people from trying.

I'm not perfect, and I have been guilty of doing all the things i detest, and on more than one occasion. But I do try to be fair-minded and objective too. It seems like, though, that those who play games dominate the action.

I went to the county Republican convention and expected to find people running for the county party offices to state their positions and we would vote. Instead it turned out to be a battle for two factions for control. One guy had his list and the other guy had his. I did do the best I could to study which each thought and chose the best cantidates that I thought would do the best job. Some won, some did not. Don't get me wrong though. I met a LOT of wonderful people, including cantidates. Sometime soon, I plan to get even more involved, though the schedule is tight at the moment.

There are still a lot of good people out there and it is my pleasure to associate with them.

59 posted on 07/03/2005 7:53:57 AM PDT by moog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE

Ditto.

""From Ronald Reagan to George W. Bush, conservative foreign policies based on American strength and American principles have been--when pursued--remarkably successful. One might even say that, in both economics and foreign policy, the degree of conservative success has been far greater than anyone would have imagined in 1980."


""But in the area of constitutionalism, conservative goals have been thwarted, and the key moment of failure, from which conservative constitutionalism has never recovered, was the Bork defeat in 1987.""


60 posted on 07/03/2005 12:57:16 PM PDT by Countyline
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-60 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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson