Posted on 07/20/2005 7:33:31 AM PDT by Babu
A grain of salt. All I know is the Coulter article which mentions this. I suspect it is true because nobody has bothered to refute or even address this point besides you!
I don't know what the legal issues were in that case.
Ann, eat a burger would ya. Because where is the beef in your non support for this Justice?
Lots of rants on lots of things but little to justify not supporting this guy.
Of course there will always be a few who wouldn't be pleased unless it was a "real" conservative. You know like Goldwater...oh that's right he did nothing bug critique conservatives in his last 15 yrs....or Reagan....oh yeah that's right he increased budget deficits and increased the Social Security tax and pulled out of Lebanon like Clinton pulled out of Somalia...er maybe Coulter...er that's right she doesn't eat meat and she refuses to get married....conservatives unite.
The reason I say Bush Bush is a "genuine" moderate is becasue the term "moderate" has been misused by the media and the left deliberately to refer to liberals. Since the term "liberal" has been discredited in the public mind, the leftist media refers to all liberals as "moderates" which they most certainly are not.
The reason I refer to Bush as a genuine "moderate" rather than a "conservative" is due to a number of issues:
signing McCain-Feingold, indicating support for an assault rifle ban, referring to Islam as a "peaceful" religion, and his apparent inability to recognize the seriousness of the border issue.
On the other hand, he most certainly not a "liberal" as his position on the Second Amendment generally, the death penalty, his foreign policy, his fiscal policies, and his attempts to rectify the social security system indicate.
The liberal left loves to abuse terms to their on advantage. Just as they refer to real liberals as "moderates", all conservatives as "extreme right wingers", they have recently taken to calling illegal aliens and illegal invaders as "immigrants".
Its all Orwellian double-speak designed to blurr distinctions and advacne their agendas.
But a real moderate like Bush is infinitely preferable to a phoney "moderate - liberal" like McCain, for instance.
Having lawyers and a judge in the family, I assure they are all manipulaters of the law for profit or gain. The judge is the most corrupt of all.
All I'm really interested in is the truth of the matter. It's very odd to see FReepers so suddenly and viciously turn on Ann Coulter this way, as if they have researched it better than she has. She knows her stuff.
Oh I make plenty of mistakes, but most things I am not wrong about, and this is one I am 100% certain of and I am more than willing to back it up with money.
That's a good start and reassuring, but Ann's point that Bush and Republicans don't need to (and shouldn't) pull any punches still stands. She lists all our political successes and demonstrates the clear contrast between what Shmuck Shumer thinks is mainstream and what the average American thinks is mainstream.
He shouldn't have nominated a question mark. There was no need to. He should have nominated a sure thing. Roberts is not a sure thing.
We know that Roberts co-authored a brief 15 years ago in which one paragraph that he very well may not even have written expressed the administration's opposition to Roe v Wade. That's it. We also know that his wife is a pro-life activist, which doesn't necessarily mean a thing. I had a starkly different view of abortion and Roe v Wade than did my ex-wives, fwiw.
We also know he has a solid Republican resume (note I said "Republican"; I didn't say "conservative"), which was precisely what one said about Anthony Kennedy and Sandra Day O'Connor when they were nominated. How quickly we forget that Anthony Kennedy was once regarded as the leader of a conservative bastion in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
The GOP has struck out 4-1 when it comes to 'stealth' nominees on the current court. Let's hope for another happy accident!
Wow...what an honor to see you posting!
How are you doing, Jack?
BTW, I had a nice conversation with Adam Hasner at the YR Convention last week?
He filled me in on the PB comings & goings.
The case was Barry v. Little. Here is what I found. There is very little about it on the web:
http://www.welfarelaw.org/contents/webbul/96jan.htm
but she's wrong on this one and hasn't done her homework wow , you said that about ann on freerepublic? oh my. of course, on the other hand, coulter saying something against what bush is for could cause a freeper's skull to implode :)
Thanks for that information.
No, he's doing exactly what Souter did. Souter was picked precisely for the lack of a substantial record and he apparently assured the White House during interviews that he was either a conservative or an originalist. He was neither. While it may just as well be true that Judge Roberts is, in fact, an originalist and just lacks a substantial record, it could just as easily be true that he's not. That's the point. We just don't know. If it turns out that he is, in point of fact, an originalist, no one will be happier than I will. But I think that appointments to the Supreme Court should be based on an actual record of decisions rather than assurances of the President and various "conservative" groups that he's "our kind of guy". We got those assurances with Souter and look what we ended up with. And it's not as if there weren't choices out there who are avowed originalists willing to stand up for their belief in that judicial philosophy. And to those who would say "well, I've got sources in the know who have assured me that Judge Roberts is a conservative or an originalist", just think back over the last 24 hours. How many posts did we read from people in the know assuring us that the nominee was Judge Clement or Judge Alito or Judge McConnell or Judge Edith Jones, and so on and so on and so on. I am all for gambling, but I'd like a little better odds than someone's personal assurances that a certain person believes in a certain way, especially when we're gambling with a lifetime appointment (which in this case could amount to 30 years or more) to a body capable of overturning acts of the Legislature elected by the People. While no pick would be certain, someone with a substantial record to look at and decide wouldn't be better. The point of this article and the point of many posts in the last few weeks arguing against a safe choice boil down to the position that we don't need a stealth candidate. An originalist interpretation of the Constitution is a valid judicial philosophy and can be defended against attack. It is the same with conservative political philosophy. If your position is grounded in logic, you can defend it. You don't need to pretend to be something you're not in the hopes that you'll slip under tha radar so you can work your true agenda later. That is the strategy of liberals, um, progessives, um...whatever they are calling themselves this week so that we don't call them socialists.
I don't believe he was on the appellate panel that actually heard "the Toad case".
Agreed on that. Does he have a son? ;-)
Ain't dat da troof
Try to imagine how much I value your opinion.
And that belief is based on ... just what?
oh the irony, now the libs will have to be siding with Ann
LOL
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.