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.
Exactly. And most thinking conservatives, including myself, followed the above during Reagan's Presidency and the SR. Bush - in fact for EVERY presidency. Why would we or should we do anything differently for GW?
BTW, I marvel at your responses on this thread. They are the most intelligent, rational, logical and comical bar none. Keep up the excellent work.
I like the way she obviously uses spell check, but overlooks the words spelled like entirely different words.
It makes me wonder what her posts look like before she uses spell check.
It was just a mention of a Bette Davis mannerism, not an attempt at one of her scripts, but I don't expect you to understand. Then again, you don't have to understand the director when you're a natural for the part. Just be yourself; it's highly entertaining.
Oh, but you might want to watch the self contradiction posts or at least spread them a bit farther apart so you don't confuse the viewers. We don't want everyone leaving the FReatre saying, "That was a good thread, but that nopardons is so intent on defense of and denial for Dubya that she many times makes no sense."
Okay, hon, pet, dear, pumpkin? Got it this time?
Then asking you to join me in dancing to Ravel's 'Bolero' is out of the question??
Key phrase: "Most thinking conservatives." ;-)
Your last point is well taken as well...
You and I simply expect the tenets of the GOP to be followed by Republican legislators....
Even when the King (R) is wearing no clothes, WE shall REFUSE wear blinders out of "loyalty." Dubya Bush is NO exception to the rule.
Furthermore, not only shall ALL Republicans be examined more closely than Dems because others (as indicated by this forum) automatically give too many free passes, but because we expect more from Republicans, they WILL hear our voice.
ROFL You bad, QTF16.
Amen! That's a keeper. (archivist arasina will get right on it, of course)
Since Madame Nopardons will no doubt be rejecting my offer, would thou care to dahnce? ( stereo needle screeching off Bolero...Now beginning, 'What I Like About You' ;-)
And thanks for assuming a preposition and completing my sentence :-)
That's not just criticizing policy, it's criticizing the essence of what this country has stood for in the world for the past century.........bringing freedom to those who have been opporessed by empire building enemies.
We have met the enemy, and it is NOT us. Sorry you don't agree with that.
My toes are tapping at your invitation. ;^)
I have an old book written at the time of the Spanish American War that speaks proudly of our new teritories and about our becoming through our victories whatever you want to call it.
And whatever your day job is, pet, hon, dear, snookums, keep it, because you haven't an iota of an idea about movies ( Bette's or others ), scripts/plays, directors and directs, or anything else.
Not interested; as I'm sure you aren't. So do please either go back to the topic,or leave the thread.
I do hope you know the year of the Spanish American War....
Look, vote. You can't win this argument, because there are no facts to back you up. You've tried with the 'military bases make an empire' and failed. Now you are trying to use the 19th century to defend your argument.
The claim that we are 'empire builders' is leftist propaganda not based in any truth, and IF you are a conservative (evidence of which I have not thus far seen), then you shouldn't be swallowing liberal garbage....
It tends to make a person become ill.
See, F16, it just proves that your 'lemming' insult is invalid. Maybe you should have asked me what I thought before you used it (erroneously) against me??
In the meantime, the Left is ALWAYS wrong, therfore we shall continue to fight them together.
Excellent!
And have you ever pondered as to why the left HATES President Bush so much?? Do they hate him because he is a 'socialist' just like they are? Do they hate him because he grows the government just like they do?
Or do they hate him because he actually is a conservative (pro-life, pro-defense, pro-military) who is ripping the Dem party to shreds, and destroying any hope they had for a future by his savvy political strategy?
I will posit the view that the left hates Bush even more than they hated Reagan (which they do) because he is accomplishing even more for conservatism than Reagan did.
And I do think that history will back me up on that. I just hope I'm around long enough to see the results of his under the radar policies deeply affect this great country for the good, and move it significantly back to the right.
Now now, OWF. Shall I trade you one "lemming" comment for two "you're on medication" comments?
"Have you ever pondered as to why the left HATES President Bush so much?? Do they hate him because he is a 'socialist' just like they are? Do they hate him because he grows the government just like they do?
Or do they hate him because he actually is a conservative (pro-life, pro-defense, pro-military) who is ripping the Dem party to shreds, and destroying any hope they had for a future by his savvy political strategy?
I will posit the view that the left hates Bush even more than they hated Reagan (which they do) because he is accomplishing even more for conservatism than Reagan did."
Interesting questions, but the answers may be even more interesting...
I will posit thusly:
The Left hates Dubya Bush because:
1) His election over Gore was deemed "stolen" and "illegitimate" and stopped liberals' momentum.
2) He is an unabashed man of faith (recall the Jr. Reagan's eulogy comments referring to Bush)
3) Due to Dubya's "political saavy," he has in fact co-opted a number of issues germaine to the Dem's constituency (social programs.) NOT a particularly endearing "strategy" for most "conservatives."
4) They knew America at war would ensure a second term -- again stopping their liberal agenda dead in its tracks.
5) The Left are elitists who "know better" than a "dumb" Dubya Bush.
6) He rallied and inspired the military very efficiently.
All this being said, there is NO WAY GWB is more "conservative" than the Gipper:
1) Dubya is much more globalist.
2) Reagan was far more fiscally responsible (and before you begin citing his raising taxes, remember he had to totally rebuild the military AND economy Jimmy Carter destroyed.) Dubya spends like it's Monopoly money.
3) Reagan was more a sovereignist. Dubya? Not. Border. Illegal Invasion. Pseudo-Amnesty. Minutemen. HUGE ISSUES.
5) Quite frankly, Reagan presided over a most crucial time in American history while setting the standard of "conservatism" for a quarter century.
The man is incomparable.
LOL! It was one that led to the other. Mine was merely a response to a silly accusation.
I believe all the things you list are factors in the hatred the left has for the President......perhaps his faith the strongest reason for their hatred at a visceral level.......something they did not have for Reagan (though they weren't all that fond of him either). But I also believe that his conservatism drives them up the wall......especially morally, which is a by-product of his spirituality.
As for Reagan.........I don't know that he was more of a 'sovereignist' and his response to illegal immigration was hardly admirable. I believe that Bush is far more interested in free trade than was Reagan, which he believes benefits the U.S. economy. I do not believe he is a 'globalist' because I've heard him ream out the UN multiple times and have seen his nixing of Kyoto and the world court, among other things.
You will get no argument from me that Reagan was a great man, and a great President, but the two leaders are, IMO, most definitely comparable, and I'm not sure it does much good for conservatives to say, "MINE is better!" "No MINE is!"
It is my view that as conservatives, we should be thankful for two great, honorable men who have led this country with courage and strength in times of great need.
I vote for them BOTH as best. :)
I agree with you, but moreso that Dubya's "morality" disturbs them when contrasted with Bubba.
"As for Reagan.........I don't know that he was more of a 'sovereignist' and his response to illegal immigration was hardly admirable. I believe that Bush is far more interested in free trade than was Reagan, which he believes benefits the U.S. economy. I do not believe he is a 'globalist' because I've heard him ream out the UN multiple times and have seen his nixing of Kyoto and the world court, among other things."
Ya gotta remember this BIG factor when comparing illegal immigration policy; Dubya is dealing post 9/11. He inexplicably absolutely refuses to address what is a very serious matter. An unenforced border is by definition "anti-sovereignist."
Sure, Bush is indeed more interested in "free trade," but at what cost?
To his credit, he's been tough with the UN and Kyoto.
"It is my view that as conservatives, we should be thankful for two great, honorable men who have led this country with courage and strength in times of great need."
Imo, Dubya is personally "honorable," however politically enigmatic.
Conservatives of my mein consider his Presidency disappointing and less than fruitful considering the GOP has controlled both Houses.
While the President has been a great "wartime" leader, we are still left with an administration which has been fiscally liberal, careless with our border, and lacking in substantially propelling conservative tenets.
A saving grace of the "Bush Legacy" may be in it's SC appointments. They NEED to be unequivocally conservative. But we may not know that extent for years.
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.