Posted on 09/17/2005 9:43:37 AM PDT by HapaxLegamenon
Roe's Influence on the Choice of the Nominee Candidates > Jones | 06:14 PM | Tom Goldstein | Comments
Second, and directly relevant to the President's ongoing process of selecting a nominee to replace Justice O'Connor, the article attributes to "[s]ources close to the White House" the fact that Edith Jones "is no longer under serious consideration." The reason "in part" is "concerns that her strongly voiced views against abortion would alienate Collins, Snowe, and other Republican moderates."
(Excerpt) Read more at sctnomination.com ...
Show me where I said you had already done either.
You might notice that saying I sound hysterical is pretty close to the line of mailigning character, Peach.
If I had the time to go back to the Shaivo threads, I strongly suspect I could find an instance or two where you did both to me.
But on this thread, in my post #30, I was anticipating the reactions of "moderates" to #30. You have to read the whole post - when I referred to "you" caling names, it was a reference to "moderates", not just you personally.
But, you post as though you are a moderate. If not that, then what?
Yep, but watch out for the RepuliBots. RINOs are damaging to the party. Seats give us committee leadership and majorities but I am not convinced we could not win without them... Four more senate seats would do it and maybe little bitty offices in the broom closet of the Senate Office building for Snowe and Collins would do it..(Right between the men's room and the Hagel and McCain offices.) I can see one seat in Lousianna that should be up for grabs in about 5 years but I bet we can gain two elsewhere in the next go round in '06.
Not Hatch. For Gosh sakes we need someone with a brain! Hatch: I don't agree with Ginsberg but I voted for her because Pres. Clinton nominated her...Ditto Trent Lott. Some leadership! They are part of the Bob Dole "go along to get along crowd"
Man, you really can't answer a straight question can you?
I posted that if moderates within the Republican party will not vote for someone for SCOTUS, then there isn't much point in nominating them.
For that post, you claim that I maligned your character and called you names.
Neither of which you can prove so you're going back to April and the Schiavo matter? Why don't you pull up ANY post, even going back that far, where I've ever maligned your character or called you names.
And, btw, why don't you also show me where I post as a moderate? It will be a loooong wait, because you can't do it.
I'll check in later and see what else you can dream up while I'm out this evening. It should be interesting.
you don't think Ginsburg or Breyer, or for that matter Scalua or Thomas had "made up their mind". Thomas said he'd never thought about the issue and had no opinion on it. do you believe that?
My guess with Roberts is he will be somewhere between Renquist and O'Conner in judicial philosophy. I think you may see a modest additional slight tilt to the right even if an ideologue is selected to replace O'Conner. Those who are seeking a conservative activist court or see a Roberts be another Scalia IMHO are in for a large disappointment.
I also don't see the point in nominating someone who has said they would overturn Roe or has strongly implied it. That decision was a horrible example of judicial activism that has politicized and wrecked the Court, but we just don't have the numbers to get a avowed anti-Roe nominee confirmed. Here's why:
1) Any anti-Roe nominee faces a filibuster.
2) There are not 60 votes to invoke cloture on an anti-Roe nominee debate.
3) There are not 50 Senators willing to go "nucular" on an anti-Roe nominee in order to get around the filibuster without 60 votes to invoke cloture.
Unless at least one of the statements above is not true, then nominating an avowed anti-Roe nominee is doomed to end in failure. The President will not set himself up for failure.
In #44, you don't seem to be talking about your post #38, which is what I was replying to. I'm not going to go back and read every post of yours to try to figure out what the heck you're talking about.
When you criticize conservatives, and talk down to us, that sounds to me like you're not a conservative. If not a conservative, and not a moderate, what's left? Libertarian? I doubt that pretty securely.
For the record, in #41, I answered the questions you raised in #38, as well as asking you a question that you didn't answer. Normally, I'd suspect someone who accuses me of doing exactly what they ARE doing of being a liberal. Is that what you meant when you implied you're not a moderate?
I think Ginsburg and Breyer have made up their minds. I doubt that Scalia and Thomas have. They have the offsetting issue of stare decisis to deal with.
have you read theie Casey and Stenberg opinions, they already have made up their minds. unless, of course, you think that they wrote those opinions knowing that they were in the minoroty so it didn't matter and that if Roe really was in danger, they'd bail and uphold it, which is a possibility, i guess. is that what you meant by that?
We control the Senate, but if we can't get the votes, even among our moderate Republicans, there's no way the nominee will be accepted. It's unfortunate, but there it is.
And for those freepers who say they will never vote for a Republican again (for various reasons), this is a case in point why it's so important to not only maintain our majority, but increase it.
To which you replied:
I and many others are willing to accept the consequences of voting conscience rather than party, regardless of how many names you call me, or how much you malign my character or political intelligence.
So I've asked you how I've maligned your character or called you names. And I see you still can't point to where I've done either. Nice try at deflection but you've been caught "exaggerating" at the very least and probably outright lying. So I suggest you stop while you're ahead.
Peach, it seems you just plain refuse to read what I wrote in reply to that claim when you made it earlier. Go back and re-read my post #41.
But wait, let me make it easy for you. Here are the sequential posts between us, starting with the post I replied to you on:
To: HapaxLegamenon
We control the Senate, but if we can't get the votes, even among our moderate Republicans, there's no way the nominee will be accepted. It's unfortunate, but there it is.
And for those freepers who say they will never vote for a Republican again (for various reasons), this is a case in point why it's so important to not only maintain our majority, but increase it.
12 posted on 09/17/2005 12:02:15 PM CDT by Peach
_______________________________________________________
To: Peach
Peach, there are two issues right now that are important to me as a conservative:
1) President Bush fulfilling his PROMISE to appoint a strict constructionist
2) The administration closing the borders for national security
If we don't know for certain the nominee is a strict conservative, then we can't know whether President Bush has kept his promise. A stealth nominee = a broken promise until proven otherwise. It doesn't swing the other way.
You "moderates" either don't understand, or don't care, about these two vital issues.
I am far from alone is deciding that if these two issues are not being serviced, then it gives me less than sufficient reason to vote Republican next time. I and many others are willing to accept the consequences of voting conscience rather than party, regardless of how many names you call me, or how much you malign my character or political intelligence.
30 posted on 09/17/2005 1:35:24 PM CDT by savedbygrace
_______________________________________________________
To: savedbygrace
OMG. You sound hysterical.
#1. I'm not a moderate.
#2. Please show me where I maligned your character.
#3. Please show me where I called you names.
I'll wait.
38 posted on 09/17/2005 3:24:02 PM CDT by Peach
______________________________________________________
To: Peach
Show me where I said you had already done either.
You might notice that saying I sound hysterical is pretty close to the line of maligning character, Peach.
If I had the time to go back to the Shaivo threads, I strongly suspect I could find an instance or two where you did both to me.
But on this thread, in my post #30, I was anticipating the reactions of "moderates" to #30. You have to read the whole post - when I referred to "you" caling names, it was a reference to "moderates", not just you personally.
But, you post as though you are a moderate. If not that, then what?
41 posted on 09/17/2005 3:44:11 PM CDT by savedbygrace
____________________________________________________
To: savedbygrace
Man, you really can't answer a straight question can you?
I posted that if moderates within the Republican party will not vote for someone for SCOTUS, then there isn't much point in nominating them.
For that post, you claim that I maligned your character and called you names.
Neither of which you can prove so you're going back to April and the Schiavo matter? Why don't you pull up ANY post, even going back that far, where I've ever maligned your character or called you names.
And, btw, why don't you also show me where I post as a moderate? It will be a loooong wait, because you can't do it.
I'll check in later and see what else you can dream up while I'm out this evening. It should be interesting.
44 posted on 09/17/2005 4:19:20 PM CDT by Peach
_________________________________________________
To: Peach
In #44, you don't seem to be talking about your post #38, which is what I was replying to. I'm not going to go back and read every post of yours to try to figure out what the heck you're talking about.
When you criticize conservatives, and talk down to us, that sounds to me like you're not a conservative. If not a conservative, and not a moderate, what's left? Libertarian? I doubt that pretty securely.
For the record, in #41, I answered the questions you raised in #38, as well as asking you a question that you didn't answer. Normally, I'd suspect someone who accuses me of doing exactly what they ARE doing of being a liberal. Is that what you meant when you implied you're not a moderate?
48 posted on 09/17/2005 4:55:26 PM CDT by savedbygrace
Well, if they wrote opinions on the issue, then it's perfectly alright for them to make up their mind. What's not alright is to make up your mind before the case comes before you.
Leni
No. You're wrong on all counts.
Are you tag teaming tonight?
Also, you're accusing the wrong person of petty and baseless nitpicking.
And for those freepers who say they will never vote for a Republican again (for various reasons), this is a case in point why it's so important to not only maintain our majority, but increase it."NO WAY.
This Party has asked for (money and votes), and received...and still it's not good enough.
If "Moderate" (RINO) Republicans aren't worth a plug nickel, then why do the RNC and President continue supporting their elections and re-elections?
My theory posits the GOP quest is about expanding their political sphere by co-opting the "center," and writing off what it considers the "far-right."
The SC appointments remain a "litmus test" alright -- for the conservative base.
And how is "The Party" responsible for the few RINO's we have in Congress? If you don't like the RINO's, work to see that the states they operate in don't re-elect them.
But instead I see folks threatening to never vote Republican again. Which is so stupid there are no words for it.
I'm so pleased you posted our entire exchange. It's clear to see who is lying and exaggerating. And it's certainly not me.
You can't back up your own words. Sad.
Let's wait and see whose picked before praising or bashing Bush on this.
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.