Dems Leak Bush's Court Short List

NewsMax ^

[MaineVoter2002]

Dems Leak Bush's Court Short List

Top Senate Democrats floated the names of potential candidates for the Supreme Court on Tuesday in a meeting with President Bush, describing them as...

[Kaslin]

From the article: Bush "didn't give us any names," Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada said after the session had broken up.

Seems to me the title of the article ought to be: Democrats Speculate On Short List

[savedbygrace]

Yup, that's why I pinged Carl to the thread, to answer for it. We'll see if that accomplishes anything.

[planekT]

Because you though you were doing the right thing.

[planekT]

I hope you're right about that.

[nopardons]

It never does ...take them long to pounce on the president.

And I doubt that most of them even voted for President Bush one time; let alone twice.

The damned UNAPPEASEABLES will never be happy about anything; which means that they are exceedingly happy indeed. Misery is the only thing, THE ONLY THING, that makes them happy; whether it's factual or not.

[Eva]

I was thinking the same thing, these are the names that the Democrats suggested would get bipartisan support. In other words, not conservatives.

[William Terrell]

Then leave her there until she rots. See who blinks first. I have no faith that this president can or will appoint anyone better, and maybe someone worse.

[Ghengis]

Attilah the Hun
Ghengis Khan
Robert Bork
David Limbaugh
Anne Coulter
Bill Bennett

Pardon me. I never play second fiddle to Attilah.

[antaresequity]

1973 court ruling that gave women the constitutional right to an abortion.

Can someone clarify somthing for me?

My understanding of the Constitution and the role of the supreme court as defined within "The" document is that the court shall cast or look at laws and see if they fit within or do not violate the Constitution.

The Constitution recognizes rights and affirms already existing rights...or so I thought.

How is it then that a body thats existence is to adjudicate laws in light of and reference to the Constitution, can "GIVE" a right recognized by the Constitution when that very body has neither the power, nor the means to do so?

Maybe I am stupid...but...I thought the SCOTUS' job was to look at law only to make sure it did not violate the Constitution.

Perhaps I am both naive and stupid...

One last thing...A women it appears has the right to either choose to have an abortion or not to have an abortion...however...the man can neither force her to do so, or prevent her from having one....YET...it is entirely encumbent upon him to support the child if not aborted. If abortion is a constitutional right, than how is that it only is afforded to one of the two sexes? How in the world can someone excercise a constitutional right that so grossly affects another party? Where is the logic in that?

[oldbrowser]

Officials familiar with the meeting said Reid was more blunt in private, telling Bush he didn't want to wind up reading about the president's eventual pick in the newspaper without having had a chance to offer his views beforehand.

You have to admire this guy's chutzpah, he acts like he actually has some cards to play.

[JLS]

that the only solution that will satisfy every on is KARL FOR THE SUPREME COURT.
__________________________________________________

An excellent compromise.

[pctech]

Same here, if Bush picks a "non-controverial" judge just to appease the whiny dems then not only am I not going to vote for GOP candidates (as I said I would not do after the GOP declined to use the nuclear option in the Senate), but I will actively pursue methods of ensuring no GOP wins in my district. We've been betrayed folks, and if Bush whimps up now it will be further indication of his sell-out to fanatical liberals.

It's called "payback!"

[Types_with_Fist]

Don't blame Carl. He doesn't have much to work with.

[AEMILIUS PAULUS]

Whomever is ultimately selected will be sure to cause harm. That is the one certainty, in America, 2005 AD.

[nopardons]

Nope, that's called abject stupidity and cutting off your nose to spite your face.

[Petronski]

LOL!

[Howlin]

Fitting, isn't it?

[Howlin]

Officials familiar with the meeting said Reid was more blunt in private, telling Bush he didn't want to wind up reading about the president's eventual pick in the newspaper without having had a chance to offer his views beforehand.

Scott McClellan said today that that is just NOT going to happen. Period.

[Petronski]

Yes it is. That's why it's so funny.

[DouglasKC]

This is baloney. Bush said nothing. The dems leaked names to their willing accomplices in the press so that they can make the charge that Bush lied or decieved them.