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.
He does, that's why I voted for him.That does not mean I must shut up and let him have free reign.
I also voted for people in the house and senate who would fight him on the 40%.
I know President Bush is my opposition on illegal immigration.
If he also fails on the judicial appointments, he is probably worse for domestic policy than any Democrat would have been.
I think a viable third party is needed. For conservatives.
It has now gotten to the point, where whenever a newbies claims that they worked for and voted for President Bush and then goes straight to the trashing of him, all I see is a "serial caller". And should they also claim that he has "changed", not fulfilled his promises...then I know that they are either a trollish serial caller type, or someone who never, ever really heard nor read candidate Bush's speeches.
The man is exactly who and what he said he was. He hasn't done nor said nor governed in a way that is at all surprising.
I think a viable third party is needed. For conservatives
I hope you can stay polite here........you third party types don't have a good track record of doing such............but I'd really like to know how people like you think.
In the first place, why do you threaten to withdraw your support in anger for judicial appointments when the President's track record has been outstanding so far? Why do you presume he would 'fail you'......as if you're the only person he has to listen to, anyway........when he has appointed the likes of Janice Rogers Brown, Patricia Owen, among many others? Have you not been paying attention at all?
The fact of the matter is, that his judicial nominees will put him into the history books as being the most conservative of any President, and responsible for one of the most significant swings toward Conservatism in the past 50 years.
And for the record, there is no such thing as a 'viable third party candidate.' They are all losers and spoilers, and if they run on the right, they give us a leftist in the Oval Office that would damage this country's military, defenses, economy, morals and most importantly for me, stop the progress made toward the value of human life.
Is that seriously what you want for this country? Seriously?
You are taxed and you are also represented. You may not be represented by whom you wish you were,or your representatives may not say and/or do what you wish they would; but, that was NEVER promised you. All that was promised, is that you would have a representative/s in government, talking and acting for you; NOT saying and doing exactly, 100% of what you imagine you want said and done. Please go take a first level class on government and politics...or do some study of same, on your own.
Are you telling me that President Bush hasn't done and 60% of the things you wish that he had ? If the figure is less, I suggest that you read the list of the president's actual accomplishments, which can be found on Southack's personal page.
You don't like the president's judicial nominees; not any of them?
If you think that a Dem would have a far better domestic policy, than President Bush, then you are no Conservative at all and neither know nor understand what you're talking about.
Amen! He is the most consistent politician I have ever witnessed. A man who says exactly what he means and does exactly what he promised within the reality of the political world.
I'm with you on the seminar calling trolls too. You've been around much longer than I, but in my time here on FR, the predictability of someone who comes on this forum saying, "I voted for him but now he's disappointed me" being an imposter is nearly 100%.
I have to say, that I really appreciate your understanding of history.........something that is completely lacking in most of the bashers. I'm afraid most of them are graduates of very weak public schools, and never learned anything about politics, political parties or history along the way.
Don't lose sight of the fact that she has a column to write, and finding topics for a scheduled column can be really draining :o)
I've been a news/political junkie since I was a baby and that's NOT an exaggeration. My mother programed me to be one, from birth. My beloved mother was also a history fanatic and so, I followed in her footsteps, in that as well. Posting erroneous and often spurious things, as "fact", drives me up a wall!
Sadly, many people here, though professing an interest in and knowledge of politics and history, are abjectly lacking ANY knowledge or comprehension of either. If there was an entrance test to belong to FR and a second one, which members had to pass with but 70%, after a year or two, there would be far fewer FREEPERS and a whole lot more intelligent postings!
President Bush is one of the so few as to be negligible, presidents who ran and governed the same way, no matter what they ran into/was thrust upon them. Anyone, ANYONE who claims that they voted for him, but now he hasn't/isn't doing what they expected, had NO idea who or what he was when they voted for him, or is lying.
Where ever did you get such an odd notion? That is certainly not in the President's job description. It is not the Presidents responsibility to even determine if legislation is Constitutional. That is the job of the SCOTUS.
On a presentational note...starting a sentence with "Uh" does not make you sound smarter, just insolent. Perhaps that is the tone you were trying to convey.
He ran W's campaigns against Gore and Kerry. We won those by squeakers when we should have won by 'landslides' as Nixon and Reagan did.
Rove was a good get out the vote technician in Ohio and Florida to pull it off but he lacks in getting out an effective message. Luckily we had Zell Miller, Schwartzennegger, and the Swift Boat veterans that riled up the winning votes
W is wimpy with the Democratic opposition and not being all he can be. For this I also fault Rove who is IMO his chief adviser.
You want a fire breathing, hell fire and brimstone spewing, get down into the gutter mudslinger. President Bush has never been such a man and I doubt that a Conservative, of such a type, wouldn't garner more votes; though it would warm the cockles of your heart.
And no, Reagan didn't do any of that. He won in landslides, because people were SO damned fed up with Jimmy Carter!
Yeah. I'm of course not trying to spread scuttlebutt, but, one must not rule out the possibility that Scalia might not have wanted the job in the first place.
McCain and Feingold are hardly Conservative.
What a delicious thought!
I lagged behind you in interest........I waited until I was 10 to become interested in politics, and haven't stopped since, but I do bow to your superior knowledge. That's one of the best things around here........learning from those who really know their stuff, and watching them demolish those who come up against them.
Sorta like watching Gen. Honore wipe out the idjit press yesterday. Yeah, baby!! Good stuff!
Well. Prove me wrong. Is Roe overturned? Last I looked, abortion was still legal in this country.
That would be Gabe Kaplan, actor and semi-professional poker player.
It's amazing how a name so familiar just disappears from your mind.........or at least mine. ;)
No problem. :)
Since I live in a solidly Red State the Two Party System would hardly notice my vote if I voted for them, but it just might notice my vote if I vote for someone else.
Speaking of being "fiscally liberal" it's not really Privitization if you're fleecing Taxpayers just to hand the Money over to some well conected persons' Private Business.
That's not what I call a Free Market Economy.
I heard it from a pretty reliable source, but that person also said that it wasn't something that anyone really wanted known.
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.