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.
Well, what difference does it make when he did it, he did it?
What am I missing here? (Of course, I came on the thread late, so if I fell into the middle of something I don't understand, I apologize now!)
The democrats took advantage of Bush's mis-steps and started blaming their mistakes on him and FEMA. This is where Bush really messed up. Rather than using his bully-pulpit as Reagan or Clinton would have done and explained what really happened to the American people and detailed the proper role of federal government, he de facto accepted blame with his speech."
Exactly. Well put.
I'm not defending my posting style - I'm defending the English language. Using the word "again" means that the condition has existed sometime in the past.
I can't be held responsible for your inability to understand the meaning of the word "again".
Disagree. They'll stick with the party that mostly will carry the single bucket of water they're interested in. Single issue voters will not get what they want if they start up a fringe third party, railing on the one issue that drives them. That's what I think is wrong with single-issue voters who decide that "Ah-HA! I'll join Party X because Party X is "anti-illegal immigration", .... but deep down beneath the surface, they are pro-terrorism.
Whatever. You may understand what you type, not everyone gets your meaning if you use THEY instead of DEMOCRATS, when your train of thought in the same sentence was REPUBLICANS.
I would like some of whatever you have to get you in the world you live in...WOW...you are really somewhere else. Blanco sends LETTER to Bush?! By carrier pidgeon...what planet are you on?
Right, and you've gone on the defensive when I pointed that out to you.
But if the GOP actually increases the size and scope of the federal government faster than the democrats or any other party, then why would they continue to vote Republican.
Republicans (in their current manifestation) also won't defend the southern border any better than the democrats. They also won't defend property rights. The won't defend freedom of speech either (CFR).
It is being reversed incrementally.
Anti-abortionists aren't going to vote Democrat, nor are they going to vote third party, for reasons I have already told you.
Huh? Seriously, is English your second language? I asked before but you might not have understood the question.
You make some ignorant and uneducated claim about the word "again" and when I point out the proper English usage of the word, you claim that I went on the defensive.
The fact of the matter is that with the socialist programs that Bush as lobbied for and signed into law, our country will not be able to run a surplus again. Those programs will ensure that will always run a deficit and always have to borrow money.
That may be fine with you since the overturning of Roe v Wade (it will never happen anyway) is all that really matters to you.
How? Bush and the GOP Senate have increased entitlements, not reduced them.
You did. Because I pointed out that "again" can mean "past tense".
I know it won't be overturned, even though I would like to see it overturned, it's not the one issue that drives me to the polls.
Rabid anti-abortionists make up a small segment of the voting public. Even if 60% of Republicans are rabid anti-abortionists, that is still only 30% of the voting electorate.
Remember, Alan Keyes only got 27% of the vote running on anti-abortion and morality issues in a state where a very unpopular Bush got 45%.
I'm the one that said "again" means past tense. You thought that it meant immediately preceding.
Someone I know who isnt really into politics told me GWB has to be one of the most unluckiest Presidents of all time, one tragedy after another. The guy still stands strong it seems.
So now you're comparing Alan Keyes up against a popular Barack Obama, and a popular sitting President against a dullard like Kerry? GOOD LORD, you're cracking me up.
By Sunday, with the national announcement, it was too late for many of them to leave.
And yes, it was Blanco and Nagin who bear the far greater blame regarding Katrina.
I said "THERE NEVER WAS A SURPLUS" to your quote "We'll never have a surplus AGAIN"....Tell me, what does that have anything to do with "immediately preceding"?
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.