Posted on 07/24/2005 5:29:08 AM PDT by Alas Babylon!
Of course, that's exactly what activist judges have done for decades now. Whereeas the "reactionary" Clarance Thomas simply reads the words of the Constitution, looks up their meaning in the dictionary instead of crafting new meanings, and rules accordingly.
Durbin says the public needs to know Roberts is in the mainstream when it comes to "values" like workers rights. Durbin says the high court can change the law.
their massive document and memo request amounts to a filibuster
Cornyn said that Kerry has already made a request for "comprehensive" documents on Roberts. Also known in the legal world as a "fishing expedition."
"Let's see how they try to keep the Rove story going this Sunday."
Oh, they'll keep it going. Look at the response to the President's radio address yesterday - the EX-CIA agent, Larry Johnson. This guy has been on and off MSNBC for a couple of years + as an 'authority' (didn't like the way the war in Iraq was going, the Admin did this wrong, etc., etc.). He's also one of the ex-CIA agents that signed the letter blasting the 'outing' of Plame. He's a partisan hack, IMHO and whenever he was on TV, he came across as an angry jerk. Maybe someone else does, but I don't recall a response to the Pres address not being done by a Dim congresscritter or gov. Since ol' Larry gave the one yesterday, it shows his political bent and the fact that the Dims are trying to make this story like the engergizer bunny (and have it keep on going, and going, and going).
"We've got you down as a NO vote for Roberts, now sit down and let the rest of us do our jobs, we don't want your vote"
Arguing with Schumer about Roberts is like debating a DU troll over Karl Rove and WMD. No amount of argument is going to end it, so make the choice not to play along earlier rather than later.
Timmy's method of going back for old quotes from people and then sticking it to them is really getting pretty old.
A TV first: Cornyn attacking the left eloquently and Chuckie having to defend against the tag team of a very strong Hume, as well as Cornyn.
Weren't they also going to go after McClellan as well?
We out to tell Durbin and Kennedy the same thing as I said in post 87 to Schumer. No amount of debate will get agreement from these guys, so write them off.
Refreshing to hear Sen. Cornyn address Chuckie as "Senator Schumer" as opposed to "Charles," "Chuck," or "my friend from New York," or any of those other nauseating faux-camraderie expressions Senators use for each other.
Great post, excellent analysis.
EXACTLY what I was thinking...Durbin vs. Thompson..well worth watching how Timmy handles this..
According to Durbin, we must now know what goes into the value judgments of those we put on the bench.
Thanks for a fantastic article by Thomas Lifson, maica. That last sentence is just perfect. Schumer illustrates that last sentence every day of his life.
One of my professors used to tell me that no matter how smart a person is, there is always going to be someone who's smarter (Cannot be theoretically true, but as a practical matter, probably so). I think John Roberts conveys himself with great and genuine modesty, a wonderful attribute in a jurist.
Chuckie keeps on saying he only wants a Justice who will "interpret law." I guess you're only allowed to create law if you are a liberal Justice.
Matthews' panel members were: David Gregory, Howard Fineman, David Brooks, and Mchelle Cottle of New Republic. His lead story is Rove, showing the timeline of events that has put Karl Rove and Scoote Libby in Fitzgerald's crosshairs.
Chris asks, "Isn't this enough of a case right now, he asks after he has shown the timeline. According to Chris, the timeline clearly shows the White House was infull "Get Wilson" attack mode.
Fineman says it's not what the White House knew and when they knew it, the question is: Did someone at the White House give reporters classified information?
Gregory says reporters cannot be liable because they don't have access to secret information.
The panel discusses the many crimes the White House may be guilty of. Outing a spy, conspricy, obstruction, perjury, etc.
Cottle says the White House may weasel out of it...perjury is too hard to prove.
We don't know any of the crucial information, just kernels of small facts, says David Brooks.
Matthews says the president is guilty of 'rolling disclosure", but that's not a crime, he says. (My opinion: Mattthews and the entire MSM have misquoted Bush. Bush said, a leaker "will be taken care of", not "he'll be fired" as the MSM have quoted him saying. It's maddening how the MSM assists the left by perpetuating their own terrible reporting.)
(In my own words, Matthews tells David Brooks he is a normal republican, not one of those far fringed freaks. (I wish I had the exact quote)..it was an abhorrent way for Matthews to suck up to Brooks. The panel yucked it up, they all knew exactly what Matthews meant. His insult to social conservatives was unmistakeable, and not even Brooks called him on it.)
Fineman is the first to mention the name, "Scooter Libby"
The entire panel seem to believe this White House is guilty of something, and also sure Fitzgerald has the White House in his sights. they seem to have no doubt of that.
Matthews' final accusatory words follow the DNC script, their strategy of tying Plamegate to the lies that took us to war. Matthews says; It's important to key in on the really important thing here. This administration lied about taking us to war. Cheney and Rice's "mushroom cloud" talk is the only reason people were scared into supporting the war. those were baseless lies and the White House knew they were lies. The White House had to go after Wilson because he exposed those lies.
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.