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.
Tremendous observations...
"He had to fight almost singlehanded to get his program through. He made mistakes but most of them were do to people giving him bad advise (like Stockman and Don Regan), or the Democrats in congress forcing him to adopt bad polices. If Reagan had been given the support Bush has - He NEVER would have raised taxes."
I concur.
And remember, Reagan never had the advantage of dealing with a GOP majority in BOTH Houses as has Dubya Bush. Imagine his further accomplishments if HE had??
GWB was accepted by most conservatives in 2000 - because thats the best we could do - the only alternate was McCrazy...
Yep...
We played the only card left to play in the deck.
Moreover, ANY debate over Ronald Reagan's accomplishments as compared to GWB's is...completely one-sided.
Nope, he hasn't. But he also hasn't strongly denounced ANY of that which BJ Bill did during his administration and has basically given tacit approval by not doing so. Doesn't it bother you in the least that Dubya's father, who lost the election to Clinton in '92, is now smilin' and winkin' right alongside him on their little global goodwill tour?
I would think this would at least set a little warning light blinking in your lucid moments, particularly since your posts indicate that you detest most of what Clinton has done to damage our country. Why not release Saddam Hussein from his prison cell and make it a trio?
Sure, we're policeman to the world.
We're spending hundreds of billions of dollars building schools and hospitals in third world countries while getting shot at for our troubles.
Is this really what our Military is for?
Is this what The Founders advised us to do?
Rome built roads for the barbarians, and then those barbarians followed the roads back to Rome.
Call it what you will, building roads for barbarians is a thankless job.
:-)
Another thing, criticism of policy isn't the same as criticism of our Nation, or of those who must carry out that policy.
Otherwise we could never criticise any policy, and that's not how things work in a Democracy.
People such as you, who have less than NO knowledge nor understanding of government and politics and the history of the presidency; that's what! You want President Bush to do and say what NO president has EVER done in the entire history of this nation. You've wanted him to go after Clinton verbally and legalistically, since before he even took the oath of office in '01! Whenever it was explained to you, that this was without precedent, you didn't care at all. And you're still carping on and on about it. GET OVER IT; EVEN THE CLINTONS AND CARTER NEVER DID IT !
President Bush the elder, though not 100% adhering to the unwritten dictum, of not speaking badly about the person who unsat you, has, upon occasion come out against Slick Willie; which you choose to forget and/or ignore.
Does it upset me that President Bush the younger has put Slick in co-charge of the Tsunami and Katrina relief programs? Yes, it does, but not nearly as much as it obviously does you.
You have the nerve to make smarmy comments about my, MY, "lucidity" and proceed to write the juvenile garbage you wrote? It is to laugh!
I shan't lower myself and join you in the gutter. But neither shall I forget this back and forth. ;^)
Reagan had some blind spots but don't blame him for Anthony Kennedy.
Kennedy followed Bork and Douglas Ginsberg. At the time, people thought he was a conservative. His work had always represented a conservative jurisprudence. Most conservatives thought he was a fine choice, though we were very disappointed that the Dems had stopped Bork.
At the time Reagan named O'Connor, Jesse Helms was the only critical voice around. The old tarheel usually had it right. Blame the Gipper for that one.
You crack me up, nopardons. You put on a really good show. You've got the prissy, aging debutante act down, girl! Did you do a Bette Davis huff-and-turn when you posted that? Heck, if I was a casting director looking for an old biddy to play the part of a condescending know-it-all, you'd be first up for an audition!
AUDITION SCRIPT: "Oh, but Papa, some of those lowly peasants are just EVER so dreadful on Free Republic! They actually DISAGREE with me, and they don't have the slightest CLUE about which wine to serve with fish!"
Nevermind I've been a realtor for twenty years, but thanks for your real easte acumen and grand revelation ("LOCATION, LOCATION, LOCATION.")...
Btw, I tried googling "Real easte values" - are they better than "real weste values"??
AUDITION SCRIPT: 'Oh, but Papa, some of those lowly peasants are just EVER so dreadful on Free Republic! They actually DISAGREE with me, and they don't have the slightest CLUE about which wine to serve with fish!'"
BULLSEYE! :-D
Excellent!
But you certainly would keep Freud in stitches, with all of your many obvious mental disorders.
And as far as script writing goes, especially at temping to sound something akin to any Bette Davis films, your post proves that you've never seen one. That was perhaps the lamest, completely incorrect stab at it, that has ever been tried. LOL
If you have been a realtor for the past 20 years and don't know that what you stated as "fact", isn't, then I guess you're just a liar.
Real estate prices has NOT doubled, everywhere in this country, since 9/11. In some places it's been doubling every single year; in other places, it hasn't doubled yet.
As with all of your other posts, you just say whatever you feel like saying, whether it is factual or not. That makes your posts worthless.
I'd wager it a "fact" that your martini glass is empty at this very moment, and you buy your olives at Costco or Sam's by the 4 liter jug.
Oh, and there is no Sam's where I live and I don't shop at Costco. But thanks for sharing your delusions.
"Almost NEVER"??
Lol, what's that mean??
It means that if I have 3-8 very small glasses of wine, over the span of a year, that's a lot for me. I almost NEVER drink alcoholic beverages. Some years I imbide none; zip, zero, nada, bupkiss.
And before you go there, I'll also tell you that I have NEVER, NOT EVER, partaken of an illegal substance,nor am I on medication of any kind.
Those few who indulge in claiming that I'm a drunk, are the ones who 1) are incapable of refuting what I say 2) have nothing whatsoever of value to post 3) are probably rather heavy drinkers themselves 4) post to an anti-FR site.
It means that if I have 3-8 very small glasses of wine, over the span of a year, that's a lot for me. I almost NEVER drink alcoholic beverages. Some years I imbide none; zip, zero, nada, bupkiss....
And before you go there, I'll also tell you that I have NEVER, NOT EVER, partaken of an illegal substance,nor am I on medication of any kind."
Then you have NO excuse whatsoever for your habitually incoherent rants and moonbat ravings...
That being said, your still entertain the hell outta me (come on -- have a martini with me [shaken or stirred?]) :-)
"That being said, yourSIC ( the contraction for you are is YOU'RE;or did you perchance really mean YOU? ) still entertain the hell outta me................"
My posts are coherent, cogent, and factual. Where you see "moonbat ravings", almost everyone else sees interesting, well thought out, and well written prose. Your own bias clouds your perceptions.
If I can help it, I will NEVER be in the same state as you; let alone acquiesce to having a drink of any kind with you. It's bad enough that I live in the same country and post to the same forum as you do.
But please, do carry on and drink yourself into oblivion.
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.