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.
Not true..
"Yes. George Bush is akin to God for some folks who place party affiliation over conservatism"
Well put. The Bush-bots will be out in force here..
"many, many conservatives called the Gipper too soft on the Soviets "
Really? I don't recall that.
"BTW, I'm not a conservative"
Wow! You're actually "outing" yourself?
"And notice how she tries to imply that Reagan gave us Clarence Thomas"
No. I don't see that.
Probably her worst most incoherent column ever. I still like Ann, but when she misfires, her weapon blows up. I guess deposing islamo-fascist regimes in two countries and changing the political realities of the mideast means nothing to Ann. A shame, I hope she puts more thought into her next column.
"How was Ronald Reagan conservative?"
Amazing statement. I guess if you have to ask you wouldn't understand.
I meant:
"I see nothing [wrong] with what I did."
Darn, I knew I'd miss those brain cells some day.......
U have arrested developement syndrone...let me cordially invite U to Big Sky Country at my humble abode on Cougar Ridge and show U how we debate with nut jobs like U...it's Easy as taking candy from a Baby...remember that song...I'll play it for U while we debate Mt. style Professooooooor...so glad they're are other people to have an intelligent debate with on this...as I have to repeat to you since U cannot retain what U read I AM WOMAN....HEAR ME ROAR!!!! Double dare U to meet with me person to person honey....I'll personally pay for your one way ticket....
"because of small personal preferences and ideology"
Is wanting smaller gvt is a "small personal preference"?
The problem is that the feelings in your tagline are echoed throughout our culture, and most significantly by the left, who still don't want to take responsibility for their own illegal and immoral behavior then, or now.
Secondly, I don't consider the illegality of drugs a 'technicality.' It is a law, and it should be obeyed. And those of us who obeyed it, and those who obey it now, should not be subjected to the scorn of those on the left........or on the far right.
And I don't need to 'lighten up' when it comes to obeying laws against things that are destructive, not only of the people using them, but of the innocent people harmed and sometimes killed by others using them.
You ARE a child of the '60's if you see drug use as innocent self expression.
I grew up during the same time period..it is no one else's business what we did in our off time not working..I have been working since I was 12 and partied hearty at times...it seems there are some right wing kooks that never enjoyed life to the fullest, and made for some pretty unhappy campers....such is life
I have a really great debate on this subject last night til 2:30 this a.m. I am talking about the Coulter article...it was fun and made for alot of contemplation.
Why is it all you bush-bots seem so angry lately? I've seen a few of you hear try to shout down anyone w/ an opinion which differs from yours. What's up w/ that?
Its supposed to be FREE Republic.
If you think shouting people down is going to garner support for your guy, I think you're mistaken.
To tell the truth, some of the people claiming to be conservative purists on this forum are in reality, some of the least conservative folks around here.
The term has been drained of its meaning by constant misuse.
"..when I was out there laying the groundwork for the Conservative Movement and beyond"
Wow!
And I see you unilaterlaly labelling someone a troll earlier, basically "just cuz you said so".
Did you ever consider you might have an ego problem?
You need to relax and light up...oooooppps...I meant lighten up!!!!
You read my tagline..it applies to the person this is going to honey...that would be U!
Maybe it's because of the constant lies of the media and the left.........you know, like George W. Bush caused the hurricane, deliberately let black people die, and was too stupid to do anything about it (even though he preceded the storm and was ignored by the idiot leftists in LA).
And then we come to FREE Republic and see mindless piling on of bashing extreme rightist malcontents, who seem to be as pleased with his seeming 'demise' as those on the left....
Maybe we're bothered because we care about truth and human decency??
Too bad he's going to let you all down and come out of these ignorant attacks stronger than ever. Too bad for you that he keeps doing what he believes is right, regardless of the bogus attacks on his policies and his character.
(And I didn't shout once on this thread).
Keep it up.
I agree with Ann.
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.