Posted on 10/01/2005 11:10:50 PM PDT by churchillbuff
This liberal is ignorant.
1. Lame duck is hardly true of ANY president with a majority in both houses and 3 years remaining in office. After all, he does sign the bills, issue the exec orders, and nominate the bodies.
2. Pres. Bush has lots to lose by telling the conservatives to go pound sand. Assuming for a moment that the Pres. is a thorough-going Rino liberal (which he is not), if he had any political sense at all, he'd realize that even the pubblie rinos don't win without their conservative base. Period. So, he can nominate a moderate and destroy his party, or he can nominate a conservative and preserve it.
3. This whole notion of damaged goods is suspect. Most of them were stymied BEFORE the Gang of 14 led by McCain made their deal. Some of those filibustered candidates were filibustered for no reason other than that was what the Dems were doing at that time.
Where's the Barf Alert. Liberals make me sick. Amen.
So what. He is picking a SCOTUS based on what people think of him in this small snapshot of time? Only democrats think like that.
He is still struggling to recover his balance after the Katrina disaster.
Lie
The war in Iraq is going very badly.
Talking point. Depends on your premise.
His FEMA chief has been discredited as a clueless crony
Nasty smear that is somewhat true
and his party’s leader in the House of Representatives has just been indicted on felony conspiracy charges.
Perfect timing
I have always maintained the Delay baseless indictment was a timed event to strong arm Bush on SCOTUS
This editorial isn't worth worrying about.
George W. Bush won the last presidential election. He's the people's choice. Now his job is to pick Supreme Court judges. The senate has a Republican majority. Why all this discussion?
This liberal does not get it. Bush does not watch the polls to figure out what to do like the liberals do. Bush does what his concious dictates.
"To refresh our memories, President Clinton had a chance to make two appointments to the Supreme Court. The first came with the retirement of Justice Byron White, a conservative who cast one of the two votes against Roe vs. Wade. And just one year before his retirement, White, joining three other justices, dissented in the 5-4 decision in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania vs. Casey, which reaffirmed the basic holding in Roe.
With the court so closely divided, what did Clinton do to preserve the balance? Did he replace White with another conservative, someone equally clear that there is no constitutional protection for abortion? He chose the former general counsel of the American Civil Liberties Union, a leading liberal law scholar whose special interest was women's rights: Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Any question how close she was going to be to White?
The president did what presidents always do. He picked someone he thought would be a good justice according to his own views. He didn't worry about preserving the balance on the court, and he certainly didn't worry about maintaining the court's division over abortion."
Thank you for explaining this so well!
Would we consider Justice Stephen G. Breyer a moderate, Mr. Clinton's other choice. While on the Supreme Court, he has tended to vote in line with the liberal-leaning bloc of Justices Ginsburg, Souter and Stevens.
The Clinton Precedent - Mr. President, Your choice please! The Senate will carry your water to obtain the confirmation!
Whatever happened to our Constitution?
Bush has the votes to get whomever he wants.
Notice how the "news"paper subtly equates a nonexistent reproductive right (IE aborting children) and the nonexistent equality of opportunity (forced egalitarianism) Neither is a right, neither of the issues are a conservative only issue. Also what in the world does uberconvervative mean?
Twice now you've used that phrase on this thread. My question is this: Who exactly, in your mind, is on this certification board? Is it just you or do you have someone in mind whose vetting that you trust?
Yeah, pleasing mainstream Democrats has to be a Bush priority.
Okay. Susanna Rodell is an idiot.>>>>>>>
More than that, I think she is really engaging in wishful thinking, a fantasy. Or maybe your'e gonna hear a lot of this kinda "I'M WARNING YOU" rhetoric crap from the rats, like the Prez is really really shaking in his Texas boots. LOL
And you're happy to be whining about something, as usual.
That is an interesting take on it. If he nominates another Catholic, the whole country will then see how bigoted the demons really are. There heads will explode, and I will personally crank up Slim Whitman
Why exactly does Bush "owe" them anything? If there's payment to be made it should be from the left.
The liberals want a liberal court (and a liberal country) but they're happy to settle for a moderate.
Their sheep are led to believe that the President is a rightwing wolf, but the smart Dems know he is a moderate. And as long as they keep up the pressure, "moderate" keeps inching to the left.
President Bush doesn't listen to political or moral advise from leftwing parasites.
Thanks, but I'll reserve judgement until after I hear his first opinion.
Now the President owes us a conservative.
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.