Posted on 10/03/2005 4:06:25 AM PDT by johnmecainrino
Your game is over.
Are you my umpire? Didn't think so.
I don't really care about your questions to Ohio. That's your own heavy-handed way of attempting to frame an issue to suit your agenda, and you can ask all the questions you want.
As a long time FReeper, I was and remain concerned that the debate on this thread seems to have gotten the best of your interpersonal skills. You are making a ridiculous spectacle of yourself. But hey, don't let me stop you.
Have a good night!
Gonzalez isn't the best choice, but at the same time knows enough to actually do the job of AG. It's also hard to play successor to Ashcroft, who was probably the best AG of the last 50 years.
Good to see that so many Freeper Republicans are in the corner with Reid, Schumer, Feinstein...and against Savage, Coulter, Kristol, Limbaugh, Levin.
Is this "judge" in the mold of Thomas and Scalia?....No.
This is the standard that Bush himself set during the campaign.
You too!
Good night all!
Dr. Dobson is not "establishment." I believe that I heard him say that he voted for a minor candidate {not Henry Ross Perot} in the 1996 presidential general election. He rejected Dole, in other words.
Eaker, just by writing the above line, you have done exactly what you claim to refrain from doing. You come off as a nasty individual, one who I hope the moderators will watch very closely.
Answer the questions or go to bed. You have lost either way.
You demand answers to your questions, but then say OWF has "lost either way." You set up a lose-lose situation, indicate your mind's totally closed no matter what answer you might get, and then add the highly insulting "go to bed" bit. And you expect people here to take you seriously?!
Only the mods can decide what to do with someone like you. As for me, I'd hope you get lost fast. Trust me -- I'd like to say something a whole lot saltier, bluer and less polite, but strong language is discouraged here.
It was interesting reading Michelle's site tonight.
But on the bright side, Dr. James Dobson has come out to endorse this pick of the President. But Michelle Malkin points out that Chuckie Cheeze Schumer loves this pick as does Senate Minority Leader Reid.
Maybe Senator Ted Kennedy might even endorse Harriet Miers. But I guess any pick by a Republican President for the US Supreme Court is against the true religion and religious beliefs of Senator Ted Kennedy.
I guess the brighter side is that the Vatican's synod on the Eucharist that just opened might just ban pro-abortion Catholics from receiving Holy Communion.
I guess that would mean Senator Ted Kennedy and the rest of the dirty dozen in the US Senate might convert to the Episcopal Church -- especially congregations that have gay marriages or gay ministers... That means that Susan Collins could marry Hillary Clinton after Hillary divorces Bill Clinton so Bill Clinton could marry Barney Frank...
Forgive me but I do not have time to read almost 3,000 posts now.
I am so disappointed in my President today, he let me down.
All I can hope is he knows this woman has conservative values. I should not have to hope though.
Is it your view that a nominee who testified "Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided and should be reversed" would not be confirmed?
What do you think the vote would be on such a nominee?
see scotus link on FR the article is listed there with all the recent articles on Scotus threads.
In the article Farah says that the "WorldNetDaily has learned" that Mier is "on record as supporting the establishment of the International Criminal Court,".
Farah gives no indication how WND has "learned" this.
It's a big fat charge -- with thin supporting evidence.
We do not know if she supported the view of the committee. We know she chaired a committee, and the committee made recommendations. She didn't resign, but instead signed. But we don't know if she voted for those recommendations. We don't know if she instead managed to soften the recommendations, or opposed them.
If there is a record of a vote in committee, and she voted for the recommendations individually, that would indicate her personal support for the recommendations.
Fortunately, the senators will get chance to ask her whether she personally supported these recommendations.
We just went through the exercise that Roberts should not be held personally responsible for positions he took in support of his clients. So we should all know the drill.
Let's make a list of the questions we want answered, and mail them to our senators. Confirmation IS a meaningful process. The Senate doesn't have to vote to confirm, they should evaluate the nominee and vote accordingly.
It's easy to denounce the democrats for announcing opposition before the hearings, but do the same when it suits us.
Wow, Farah printing upsupported charges; such a surprise, eh?
Michelle Malkin should think for herself. She shouldn't base her opinions on what others say they like or dislike.
Think of the ramifications of doing such.
I believe you are right on all those points. If she is Pro Life, that leaning will be exposed by the Dems.
The issue is about to become is a moderate conservative confirmable. She will not appear extreme. She will seem genial and will politely disagree with the Dems.
In the final analysis it is not the Dems who must have cover. It is the 7 RINOs. They decide who is confirmable. That means a moderate conservative, not a hardline conservative.
And keep in mind, this is not guesswork. Bush would have called them and asked who was unacceptable. The preferred names of FR would have led the list.
IMHO such a candidate would never get an up-or-down vote. The nominee would not get 60 votes for cloture or 50 votes for the nuke option -- not in the current Senate, anyway.
A committee of the ABA took a position supporting the International Criminal Court. Miers was the person who had to draw up some reports indicating the positions of the various committees. It had nothing to do with her personal position. WND is literally trying to shoot the messenger.
Thanks for the ping. This is a resolution that is sorely needed.
"yes she supported by giving monies for Gore and the DNC back in 88"
Okay, 17 years ago she donated to Al Gore and the DNC, so what? I'll tell you so what, whom do you know at 42 years old, that contributes to democratic candidates, and then decides to go republican. that is very strange. maybe some republican gave her a job and things just sort of steamrolled from there. Next thing she knows, she is a republican. no real commitment, just loyal to the person who gave her a job. Now when she gets on the SC, she is free to exorcise those little republican 'demons' that she has playing lip service to. Headline of the day "BUSH BLEW IT. DEMS DELIGHTED."
Yes, it's a shame to see "conservatives" falling for it.
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.