HELL NO!
And I'm in a solidly red State myself (Texas). I have no use for foreign policy wussies and total weaklings.
If you want a Google GMail account, FReepmail me.
They're going fast!
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.
You're absolutely one of THE least politically savvy people on FR; bar none. You may have been a member here for an extremely long time, but I have yet to see you make a single wise/correct/well thought out post in your entire posting career here.
I mean, you just seem to be slamming the person, not arguing a point.
Obviously Cautor can't explain. So far the answer is "If you don't know I'm not going to tell you." Dubya isn't inviting Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to Mom's birthday party. It's just childish hyperbole. A sinister yet vague slander. Typical.
BTW, the leader of Iran today led the hostage-taking, and this administration treats him like one of the family.
To me the fringe right sound a lot like rats. They use the same attacks and half-truth tactics.
And I'm NOT talking about anything all that difficult...just basic stuff, really, as to how our government REALLY functions ( as opposed to how some imagine it does ), a bit of factual American and world history, and something about politics and elections, from the start of this nation through today.
As a willing and somewhat rather malleable child, faced with a mother who could have taught the KGB how to program people, I had little choice. ROTFLOL
Many thanks for you very kind words and compliments!
HELL NO!
And I'm in a solidly red State myself (Texas). I have no use for foreign policy wussies and total weaklings.
If you want a Google GMail account, FReepmail me.
They're going fast!
It is best, when new, to read far more than one posts, get to know the people here, and to stay out of what doesn't concern you. And I was, actually, arguing a point; one which was abysmally ignorant.
Coulter is becoming a clown, and is near to bozo territory. She is all for effect now, darn the substance.
Soooooooooo, now you are implying what; that President Bush is making policy to put money into the pockets of his friends? Boy oh boy are YOU ever wrapped too tightly in tinfoil !
Nopardons seems a little worked up, probably because he knows he couldn't be more wrong.
To be president it's often said, the candidate should have fire in his belly. A nonchalant attitude, like his dad's sneaking a look at his watch, costing us the election, just doesn't fly.
Being a part time wimp, like cuddling up to Teddy Kennedy or Bill Clinton or CARE, should make conservatives shudder. Like Ann, I want a president that pushes the parties platform, that uses all our hard earned advantages, and not be held back by his handlers (Rove IMO).
Signing the campaign finance reform really put a blemish on his legacy. After all, if a Republican president, with mandate to spare, doesn't defend the constitution, who ever will in the future?
Like Rush says, the truth is hard too take, and that's what nopardons is wrestling with.
I would have loved to have read a response to this question. When I read the rats carping about Dubya it sounds very much like the whining I read from the rat's anti-Bush bedmates...the nit-picking right fringe. I can never tell if they hate Dubya because he is so stupid and inept, or if it is because he is so diabolically evil and greedy.
Making policy to put money into the pockets of your friends extends far beyond any one individual and is a story as old as history.
It's always something to watch out for.
I do not follow Bush blindly. I accept him even with his faults because I can't think of a better man to be President today. The country has not gone backward for 50 years. It has gotten much better since 1994 and we are now poised to make generational change by changing the balance of the SCOTUS.
George Bush is not and never was a true conservative .
He is by my definition. I believe he is far more conservative than his father, Reagan, Ford or Nixon. I'm proud to say I voted for him twice.
Most people know that ,but we didnt think he was a liberal lefty when it comes to immigration ,and social spending.
Then you were not listening. Bush advocated a guest worker program in 2000 as a candidate for President. He also said he would deficit spend in times of war and recession. If you were confused that is not Dubya's fault.
If you cant handle it or are afraid to face it that is your problem.
It is easy to face a lie. You simply refute it as I have done.
Sean
Not true..
Then do it.
Poppycock. Bush and Rove got just enough votes to win re-election and spent the rest of their efforts election SENATORS. Reagan won a big landslide victory and lost the Senate. What great legislation did he get pushed through with his landslide? Bipartisan victories for the 86 illegal immigration amnesty and the 87 tax increase.
And no, I am not "worked up", I am not "wrong" at all; but you are...As always.
President Bush the younger is not his father. To attempt to tar him with his fathers actions, is patently ridiculous.
To call the president a "part time wimp" (sic), when he is being civil, diplomatic, and collegial, only betrays you as a political naif with very little understanding and the emotional stability of a DUer.
Doing the things you claim that you want President Bush to do, would get him and us exactly...NOTHING! Jettisoning Rove, in favor of whom ? Ann? Oh yeah...with ideas such as that one, you'll go far in political circles...below the bottom and rapidly!
CFR put a "blemish" on this president's legacy? ROTFLOL
Now, while I abhor McQueeg and the CFR, if you think that that is going to be a big old ugly blemish on President Bush's legacy, then you've more than proved what I said about you.
The truth may hurt, but I suggest that YOU are the one who very much needs to face the fact that you know very little about politics and understandxs it far less. As to Rush, he's been mailing in his shows for years and while he may know a bit more about it all than you do, he's no expert. And I'm "wrestling" with absolutely nothing.
Unless you have proof positive, it is more than disingenuous to snidely post such a remark, which can easily be taken to mean something about this present president.
Mark Levin is the CREAM OF THE CROP, as far as knowing Constitutional law and knowing all about the SCOTUS is concerned, of Conservative punditry. Compared to him, Ann isn't even ready for the sandlot team! She is apparently unaware, as are you, that it is exceedingly rare, to the point of almost NEVER happening, that a justice is elevated, from within SCOTUS, to be the Chief Justice. And besides that, elevating Scalia to that post, would not only have raised a terrible stink, quite possibly would be stymied by the Senate, but would then have left open TWO places on SCOTUS, not one, to be filled by President Bush and we would have then been faced with THREE bloody fights in the Senate.
I beg to differ...just because Scalia has been there for a while, neither you, nor I or anyone else has any idea if being Chief Justice would change Scalia ore not. It still would be a crap shoot!
Roberts is one of THE best known nominees any president has EVER made to the SCOTUS! He clerked for Rehnquist, who, for all we know, was the one who told the president to put him up in the first place.
Roberts worked for President Reagan, he argued before the SCOTUS and won more of those cases, than any other lawyer, EVER, and we even know who his friends are! One of his oldest and BEST friends is LUTTIG,whom many here have yearned was the nominee.
I have NOTHING at all against Italians. But many you should ask Ann why she is so crazy to have an Italian Chief Justice and then, you might also want to ask her why it is that she has ignorantly left out the salient fact that Reagan also put Kennedy on the court and ignores the fact that President Bush the elder gave us Thomas, whom she implies was a Reagan nominee.
Good points.
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.