Posted on 08/04/2005 4:07:48 PM PDT by churchillbuff
The Bush administration is making a mistake if they think Roberts won't need support from the conservative grassroots. If we don't get into this game, it will be left up to the liberal establishment, who will end up trashing him and maybe beating him if we sit on our rear ends.
If Robert's turns out to be another Souter, the GOP won't be forgiven too easily.
They would (deservedly) pay a price in 2006 and 2008.
Conservatives seem to be afraid we might win one.
Bush made a mistake, in my mind, by not nominating a clear conservative -- somebody whose track record was obvious, instead of a "stealth candidate" Choosing a "stealth" candidate is a sign of weakness, a sign that you don't have the courage of conservative convictions because you're afraid to have a debate on them.
I've been totally supportive of Roberts up to this point, but if he did "pro-bono" work for gay rights, that could easily change my opinion.
No, we're afraid that we've got another Souter. That won't be a "win," even if he gets confirmed.
Roberts is a stealth candidate because Bush must not think that the Republicans in the Senate have the 'nards to get a true practicing conservative confirmed. If Roberts turns out not to be pro-life and staunchly conservative, I may be looking for a third party to join, after having voted straight Republican since 1972.
MAybe, but most Bushbots will downplay the matter, and Rush will say, in so many words, "nothing to see here, let's move on and make fun of Hillary and Ted Kennedy"
please do
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
Rush sure didn't sound convincing today trying to explain away Roberts' (pro-bono) work with the Homofascists.
It seems like abortion is the only care on the minds of too many people in this country, as the measure of the acceptability of a new SCOTUS justice. It would behoove this country, if it worried more about the Constitution, and the true mandate of the court, upon which the entire future of the American Republic rests. At the same time, ANY CANDIDATE could come in and participate in the overturning of R vs. W. So, if critical thinking is the mark, the stability and dedication of a justice to supporting and protecting the Constitution, and upholding and applying written laws of the U.S. only, and not ever supporting any form of legislation from the bench -- or courts making laws -- however you might want to call it, is really the key focus of candidate selection.
The largest looming threat in this country is the threat that the SCOTUS will AGAIN legislate from the bench, and slam the Constitution, AS IT DID relative to property ownership of those folks in Connecticut. Therein lies the classic example of what will bring down our Republic, our freedoms, and our liberties. Mark my words.
FReepers continue to fall for these lame divide-and-conquer tactics.
Because the Romer decision was unconstitutional -- it essentially says the federal constitution forces you to hire or rent to somebody who's flouting an alternative lifestyle. It also laid the groundwork for court-imposed gay marriage. Hey, thanks a lot, John Roberts!
The idiot Republicans need to realize that 55 is 11 more than 44, and that it shouldn't matter what a single Democrat thinks of any nominee.
Do you think for one second that if a Dem President nominated a Judge with such a huge advantage in the Senate, that they would care what the minority party thought of that candidate?
He would (rightly) tell them to go jump in a lake.
Go ahead and throw Roberts under the bus. Then you will get a Souter. One thing conservatives are very good at is eating their own.
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.