Posted on 09/21/2005 4:54:29 PM PDT by goldstategop
Perhaps President Bush has inadvertently nominated a true conservative to the court with this Roberts fellow. I remain skeptical based on the following facts:
Anita Hill has not stepped forward to accuse Roberts of sexual harassment.
The Democrats did not accuse Roberts of having a secret life as a racist.
We have no idea what kind of videos he rents.
Also, I'm still steamed that Bush has now dashed my dreams of an all-black Supreme Court composed of eight more Clarence Thomases. Incidentally, eight more Clarence Thomases is the only form of human cloning I would ever support.
As liberal Hendrik Hertzberg wrote in the New Yorker, Roberts was a scared choice. After Hurricane Katrina, Bush was even more scared. So when he had to pick a chief justice, he renominated the Rorschach blot.
For Christians, it's "What Would Jesus Do?" For Republicans, it's "What Would Reagan Do?" Bush doesn't have to be Reagan; he just has to consult his WWRD bracelet. If Bush had followed the WWRD guidelines, he would have nominated Antonin Scalia for the chief justiceship.
As proof, I refer you to the evidence. When Reagan had an opening for chief justice, he nominated Associate Justice William Rehnquist. While liberals were preoccupied staging die-ins against Rehnquist and accusing him of chasing black people away from the polls with a stick – something they did not accuse Roberts of – Reagan slipped Scalia onto the court.
That's what Reaganesque presidents with a five-vote margin in the Senate typically do. Apart from toppling the Soviet Empire, Scalia remains Reagan's greatest triumph.
Scalia deserved the chief justiceship. He's the best man for the job. He has suffered lo these many years with Justices Souter, Kennedy and O'Connor. He believes in a sedentary judiciary. He's for judicial passivism. Scalia also would have been the first cigar-smoking, hot-blooded Italian chief justice, which I note the diversity crowd never mentions.
But most important, if Bush had nominated Scalia, liberals would have responded with their usual understated screams of genocide, and Bush could have nominated absolutely anyone to fill Justice O'Connor's seat. He also could have cut taxes, invaded Syria, and bombed North Korea and Cuba just for laughs. He could even have done something totally nuts, like enforce the immigration laws.
Even if Roberts turns out to be another Rehnquist (too much to hope for another Scalia!), we don't know that, Bush doesn't know that, and Bush has blown a golden opportunity to make Chuck Schumer the public face of the Democratic Party. A few weeks of Schumer as their spokesman, and normal Democrats would be clamoring for Howard Dean to get back on the stick. Teddy Kennedy would start showing up at hearings actually holding a double scotch.
Inasmuch as Bush must still choose a replacement for O'Connor, it's important to remember the "Sandra Day O'Connor bylaw" to the WWRD guidelines: Never appoint anyone like Sandra Day O'Connor to any court at any level.
Reagan had made a campaign promise to appoint a woman to the Supreme Court. He didn't say anything about appointing a ninny. But back in 1981, it was slim pickings for experienced female judges. O'Connor was a terrible mistake and will forever mar Reagan's record, but at least he did it only once.
Bush has already fulfilled all his campaign promises to liberals – and then some! He said he'd be a "compassionate conservative," which liberals interpreted to mean that he would bend to their will, enact massive spending programs, and be nice to liberals. When Bush won the election, that sealed the deal. It meant the Democrats won.
Consequently, Bush has enacted massive new spending programs, obstinately refused to deal with illegal immigration, opposed all conservative Republicans in their primary races, and invited Teddy Kennedy over for movie night. He's even sent his own father to socialize with aging porn star Bill Clinton.
(Sidebar on the aging porn star: Idiot Republicans fraternizing with the Clintons has not harmed the decadent buffoon's reputation abroad. A Chinese condom manufacturer recently named one of its condoms the "Clinton," a fitting tribute to the man who had Monica Lewinsky perform oral sex on him in the Oval Office on Easter Sunday. Their advertising slogans are: "Always wear a 'Clinton' when you're getting a 'Lewinsky'!"; "I still believe in a place called the G-spot"; "Extra-thin skinned!"; "For when you really, really want to feel her pain." Note to Bush: This isn't Walter Mondale. How about sending Pops on the road with Joey Buttafuoco?)
According to my WWRD wristwatch, it's time for Bush to invade Grenada, bomb Libya, fire the air traffic controllers, and joke about launching a first strike against the Soviet Union. In lieu of that, how about nominating a conservative to O'Connor's seat on the court? It would be a bold gesture.
As the article clearly states....
The more things change, the more they remain the same.
But don't be disappointed in the President. If you can see far enough down the road, you will see that he is advancing the cause of conservatism in many, many ways.
We need to support him, even if we disagree about some of his policies (which I do), because the left is literally trying to destroy him.
Bush = Rinoisimus Maximus..
*His administration cut off funding to the United Nations Fund for Population Activities because the global agency violated U.S. law by participating in China's mandatory abortion program.
*His administration adopted regulations prohibiting federally funded "family planning clinics" from promoting abortion as birth control.
*The Reagan White House blocked use of federal money for research using the tissue of aborted babies.
Bush has done all of this too, and more.
No response, I see, to any of the other objections.
Look, I loved Ronald Reagan. But he was simply not as conservative in action as Bush has been. Not even close.
Not at all. We have had many a troll, disruptor, and sleeper troll here from the beginning. And since YOU posted exactly like a serial caller/troll, until you prove otherwise, you are suspect.
Pity. It must be rough to live that way.....
Thank You!Some people have selective memories! It is what it is. Face the truth. Time seems to make some memories go in different directions of what actually happened.
President Bush is most decidedly NOT a RINO. It is you who are not a Republican.
I still support him . I just wish he'd get off his ass and really slam back at some of the absurd lies that are constantly being thrown at him (and US in general) The whole Jatrina thing. He should have SLAMMED the mayor of NO and the Gov of LA and told the real story.He's lets too much go and some people figure he's not disputing the lies, so , they must be true. Immigration bothers me and playing nice with that scumbag Klinton is a mistake in my book.
Ann is the leanest meanest RINO exposer of all time..
So she got ya huh.. (making a note..)
"Reagan didn't hold a candle to Bush in what he actually did."
As I said earlier, you're long on opinions, something that seems to be your strong suite.
I had a 14% mortgage when Jimmy Carter was Prez. We had stagflation (maybe you're not old enough to remember that). We had our citizens held hostage by the Mullahs in Iran. Reagan came in and the Mullahs knew he meant business and they released the hostages. BTW, the leader of Iran today led the hostage-taking, and this administration treats him like one of the family.
Reagan also saw to it that the freedom fighters in Nicaragua were't left defenseless despite bans by a congress held hostage by the DUmmycrats on giving them aid--yes, he stepped across the "legal" line to do it, but he did what he had to do to bring Democracy to Central America. And as I said before, he gave the nation hope and he brought down the sky-high interest rates and put people back to work in record numbers. He rebuilt our military which had become desperate under Carter. He brought down the Soviet Union and he gave birth to the notion that abortion is wrong. He was not perfect, but his achievements are absolutely monumental.
You say "Reagan didn't hold a candle to Bush in what he actually did." I don't see that. Nevertheless, you are entirely free to your opinion of Reagan, but it is the opinion of one guy pecking away at his keyboard just as I am.
That's why the article makes absolutely NO sense.
I've never seen Coulter so weak and illogical.
Give me a break buddy .
^5 ! :-)
He has risen above the fray, and will be completely exhonerated in the end.
If he had fought back at the petty level that his opponents did, he would only look small like they do.
(Although it would have been kind of fun to hear him say that he was going to punch Mary Landrieu in the face. ;)
"and very defensive as well"
I'm not defensive, I'm offensive. I'm quite happy to point out why I'm unhappy with the guy I voted for twice. In my case, it's more like the "Joe, say it ain't so" disappointment I have with him.
Ohio forgot to take her med's tonight ir maybe every night, she has called me a troll, newbie, DU everything you can think of...I just find her hilarious and likes to argue with anyone who dare to critique Pres. Bush and the way our guy has had numerous chances and still does at golden opportunities to make the most of a perfect situation...but DOES NOT...it is disheartening at times.
GMTA. ;)
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.