Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: white_wolf
The issue is that Bush could have, and should have, nominated one of the good, powerful, intellectually brilliant candidates rather than an unknown.

Yeah, we all know what happened the last time a president named Bush nominated a relatively unknown judge that folks said wasn't the best-qualified - and who wasn't all that brilliant.

We got Clarence Thomas.

2,213 posted on 10/03/2005 10:45:27 AM PDT by dirtboy (Drool overflowed my buffer...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2208 | View Replies ]


To: dirtboy
Yeah, we all know what happened the last time a president named Bush nominated a relatively unknown judge that folks said wasn't the best-qualified - and who wasn't all that brilliant.

We got Clarence Thomas.

And we know what happened the time before; we got David Souter.

History isn't on the conservatives' side. Going back to President Eisenhower, Republican Presidents have nominated Justices that turned out to be conservatives something less than half the time, while they have nominated Justices that have turned out to be liberals a quarter of the time.

2,218 posted on 10/03/2005 10:49:55 AM PDT by steveegg (The quarterly FReepathon is the price you pay for FR...until enough people become monthlies!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2213 | View Replies ]

To: dirtboy

Thomas was unknown, but has a powerful intellect and a spine of steel. To MOST of the obvliots in this country, ALL of these candidates are unknown. They determine whether they are known candidates based on what they hear on the 5 min of news they watch or what the girls on The View say.


2,221 posted on 10/03/2005 10:50:51 AM PDT by Republic of Texas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2213 | View Replies ]

To: dirtboy
Yeah, we all know what happened the last time a president named Bush nominated a relatively unknown judge that folks said wasn't the best-qualified - and who wasn't all that brilliant. We got Clarence Thomas

It's possible that Pres. Bush is playing the Dems for fools, and that both his picks will turn out to be like Thomas. I'm scared, but that might be part of the plan. Dis the conservatives, get her confirmed, then they both turn out to be Democratic nightmares.

I'm trying to convince myself, here hehe

2,222 posted on 10/03/2005 10:50:51 AM PDT by SupplySider
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2213 | View Replies ]

To: dirtboy
Clarence Thomas had already been confirmed by the United States Senate-multiple times-and had served as an appellate judge.

He had already earned the contempt of Howard Metzenbaum and Paul Simon-to name just two extraordinarily radical Democrats that continually tried to deny him-and had an established record at the EEOC.

What's more, he had numerous high-profile Republican officeholders who spoke in his favor prior to his ultimate confirmation to the Supreme Court.

2,229 posted on 10/03/2005 10:54:45 AM PDT by Do not dub me shapka broham ("I'm okay with being unimpressive. It helps me sleep better.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2213 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson