Posted on 07/16/2005 8:53:44 AM PDT by advance_copy
WASHINGTON - President Bush gave the nation several clues Saturday about the person he will nominate for a seat on the Supreme Court, except for the most important one — a name.
In his weekly radio address, Bush said his eventual nominee will be a "fair-minded individual who represents the mainstream of American law and American values."
His candidate also "will meet the highest standards of intellect, character and ability and will pledge to faithfully interpret the Constitution and laws of our country," the president said.
"Our nation deserves, and I will select, a Supreme Court justice that Americans can be proud of," he said, without revealing the name that many are anxious to hear.
Bush also discussed his recent meeting with Senate leaders of both parties to discuss the nomination and confirmation process for a replacement for Sandra Day O'Connor. The first woman to serve on the high court, O'Connor announced July 1 that she is stepping down after 24 years.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
I know - I would laugh with you except for the damage that was done to our nation as a result of Perot's misguided candidacies.
The above should be the new defintion of the word "projection" in Webster's dictionary.
He could have if he wanted ABC, NBC, CBS, NYT, LATimes, CNN, MSNBC and the rest all over him...
Maybe if you were trying to be stealthy you would wear a bright orange jumpsuit?
I've got $20 bucks that says it's Jeff Gannon!
If any president would pick any ONE issue -- anything you like -- and would take the time to tell ''the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth'', by the time he would finish, his term of office would be over.
One cannot hold any president to the standard of the ''whole truth'', for the very simple reason that government is an extremely messy business. ''Whole truth'', in many cases, would invariably get some number of people killed, just from the reactions of other parties over whom neither the president nor the gov't in general have any authority.
uh oh..."mainstream American law and American values" sure sounds like "pro-choice" to me. I hope I'm wrong, because if I'm correct, count the Christian Right out of voting in the congressional elections next year. They will have been double-crossed one time too many.
Agree. That is what any President would say about their potential nominee. As far as a hint, call me dense but I didn't find the "hint" very helpful as to who he might nominate.
You sound exactly like a chatter in a political room on anither site, except she said she voted for Nader
However, it's up for grabs whether it matters much whether or not the alphabetsoupnet crawls all over him. He's not running for anything any longer. The alphabetsoup crowd aren't ever going to like him or anyone to the right of Susan Collins, so why should Mr. Bush even consider them?
Perhaps I'm very thick, but I fail to see how ''stealth'' in this matter can work either to his or to his party's advantage, whereas it's quite obvious how ''stealth'' might well work to his disadvantage (this whole thread, for instance).
That has got to be the worst ambiguous response in liew of a rational statement that you have made in a long time.
Good article. Thanks for the link!
There are massive numbers of other initiatives and policies and appointments (the appeals court appointments to name a few)for which I am extremely grateful to this President and the stalwarts in Congress who do support and defend our rights and our liberties.
Should the Dems succeed in their goals, one of which is to constantly focus on what divides the Republican base, the result will be the biggest disaster of our lifetime. Do you want to be a party to that?
Absolutely. Why do the words "compassionate conservative" keep sounding in the back of my mind? As though conservatives are not compassionate?
And I don't remember who said something to you about going back to DUmmyland, but I think he/she didn't check how long you have been here. Or am I mis-rememorying that episode.
Ask one of the perpetual critics of Bush who he supports. That might be one of the rarely seen extremists we all hear about. Personally I don't know any but me.
He has said it before. Mainstream isn't necessarily a bad word.
If they are a mainstream conservative.
I did notice the drop of any mention of making sure the person is not an activist judge.
He said previously he would appoint a judge like Scalia.
How is that not telling the truth? It's just not talking in an abrasive manner, he said "interpret the constitution". Lets wait and see.
BINGO! His speech hits the "bullseye" of the liberals! Remember their doomsday's saying "loosing jobs," "the economy is sinking" etc. etc. All these things he has proving them wrong and they have no ideas or agendas to optimize the American people, except slinging as much mud as possible at W. to see what will stick. After the Senators had "visited" which they had no right to - what so ever - because it's his right ALONE to pick the nominees, Dingy Harry was very very low key and in a lame duck key, because before the meeting he probably had read the new poll where over 60% asked wanted the President's nominees to be confirmed without filibustering. Even among the democratic voters alone the poll shoved an overwhelming advance for the President!! They are in a rapidly meltdown!!!
Misrememorying? LOVE IT! Send that one to the president, to go right alongside ''strategery'', heh heh heh!!
Not even concerned w/whoever made that comment about DU. It was just plain old silly. As you say, my views are both very conservative and thoroughly (perhaps even too thoroughly) well-known to anyone here who has taken the trouble to read them. C'est ne fait rien, and ho-hum.
;^)
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.