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.
That is not a scientifically valid method of polling.
Look I agree with you - the media has pushed the notion that the federal government was to blame when in fact FEMA is not a first responder. The problem is that Bush has done nothing to correct that false impression. His speech came across as a mae culpa and "I'll make sure we do better next time" speech.
AGREE!! Not much coverage of the other states either,where whole towns were wiped out completely.
It is always politics with the media to try and gain the control they are never going to have again and still are too dumb to know it! In the long run we should really be happy but it is enough to make you blow up the TV with a 44 revolver (that the chamber is empty) and have a brief second of happiness...they never quit, too many years of power they really do not understand they never are going to have again.
Read and understand my post before you go off on a half cocked rant.
I never blamed Bush for the mistakes the local and state officials made. I've pointed out several times that the local and state officials messed up and then tried to shift the blame onto FEMA and Bush. Is that Bush bashing?
Where do you come off on instant gratification? Where did that come from?
My point, and you even quoted it, is that Bush allowed the misconception that FEMA screwed up and is a first responder to continue. Rather than explaining in a politically savvy way what the proper role of FEMA and federal government is during and emergency, he just addressed it with a "We'll do better next time" speech.
Geesh, I was actually agreeing with you and you still find a way to call me a Bush basher.
Reagan went over the heads of the democrats and the media and made personal appeals to the American people. Neither the junior or senior Bush did/does so. "W' should make these attempts. His speeches are generally very well delivered. In fact, his delivery is excellent. He would do very well.
I'm sorry that you feel that the President didn't communicate effectively enough for every nitwit in American to understand how things work.
I'm sorry that you feel that the President should have stood up and said "not my fault. I warned them but they wouldn't listen to me."
I'm sorry that you feel that somehow a carefully crafted message should have been made that would have pinned all the blame somewhere other than the White House.
The media, who covered Katrina, understand how things work. They knew perfectly well that the foul-up was in NO and with the governor. They did not care. They only cared about playing "gotcha" reporting and drawing blood.
Now, do you think the President should have gotten into a p^ssing match the with mainstream media? Do you think he is going to win in that circumstance... considering the pictures that were coming out of NO at the time. Considering that the media was too busy showing the ugly in order to win the ratings race.
Every time there is a crisis, does the President have to tell us how our own country works? To whom? Those who don't care or won't listen to what he has to say because they oppose him on issues greater than what occured in NO.
I explicitly said in my post that he shouldn't get into a mudslinging contest. Look, when Reagan needed to get his message out, he went over the heads of the media and addressed the public directly. People liked and respected him for that.
Bush screwed up by taking the blame. I'm sorry you can't see that.
Rather than explaining in a politically savvy way what the proper role of FEMA and federal government is during and emergency, he just addressed it with a "We'll do better next time" speech.
I honestly don't know whether to laugh or cry when I read that.
Half the people in this country think that The Gettysburg Address is 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and you're asking him to be "poltically savvy" with them?
Whether it's bashing or carping, I'm tired of this constant drumbeat for somebody's head on a platter, regardless of what the situation is.
We should be concerntrating on what we did WELL. And try to do better next time. You do realize, don't you, that this are PEOPLE earnestly trying to do their very best, right?
I agree with you also to a point.
How do you know NO ONE will listen unless you try with a firm strong message and grip on things and put them in the order they should be, without looking like an dictator..it can and should be done. This is not a time for the President to let the media take control at all, it is time for him to take control. It can and should be done.
I think that you have a very romantic idealized memory of what the Reagan administration was like. There were just as many balagans in that administration as there was in this one.
Bush speaks over the head of the media all the time. Very effectively too. People like and respect this President just as much as they did Reagan.
This is not a time for the President to let the media take control at all, it is time for him to take control. It can and should be done.
And he did not... He took control of situation... Even when the media was running around screaming "off with his head", he took control.
FGS, that was 25 years ago. The media has changed!
Coulter has a blind spot where Roberts is concerned. There was nothing inadvertent about President Bush's selection of Roberts. What Coulter refuses to understand is it is she who has been consistently wrong about Roberts.
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.Note to Bush: This isn't Walter Mondale. How about sending Pops on the road with Joey Buttafuoco?
I loved and respected President Reagan, but it's a bit over the top to compare any man to Jesus Christ.
In a way it was. Her position on Roberts has been locked in since her first column on him. She doesn't seem to have the capacity to admit she was wrong, so she continues to dig.
I agree wholeheartedly.
Its for people like you that follow these idiots blindly that the country has gone backwards for 50 years .George Bush is not and never was a true conservative .Most people know that ,but we didnt think he was a liberal lefty when it comes to immigration ,and social spending.If you cant handle it or are afraid to face it that is your problem.
Its for people like you that follow these idiots blindly that the country has gone backwards for 50 years .George Bush is not and never was a true conservative .Most people know that ,but we didnt think he was a liberal lefty when it comes to immigration ,and social spending.If you cant handle it or are afraid to face it that is your problem.
Honey, Scalia is the cream of the crop when it comes to Constitutional Law. That's one of the reasons Ann is suggesting he should've been nominated for Chief Justice. In addition, we know exactly what we're getting with him because of his prior rulings.
While Roberts appears to be a good man and extremely well versed in Constitutional Law, he is still an 'unknown commodity' --- much like Souter was at one time. We didn't get to see Souter's 'interpretation' of the Constitution until it was too late; he's now firmly ensconced in his lifetime appointment.
And BTW, just what do you have against Italians?
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.