Posted on 10/03/2005 7:10:27 AM PDT by NormsRevenge
I cited history. Are you contesting my claim that Rehnquist was not a judge? If you are, I'm certainly not the one that looks like a fool. If you want to oppose the nomination, that's fine. But base it on facts, not falsehoods. Falsehoods are not a strong way to back up your arguments and aren't convincing.
while trying to silence other opinions.
How have I tried to silence you? By responding to your post?
Is anyone else tired of living in the grey area? Never knowing for certain, always having to second-guess, and waiting constantly for the next shoe of doom/celebration to fall?
I didn't need to be this way. That's all I'm going to say.
Right, the Medicare expansion, the Kennedy-supported NCLB Act, the open borders/amnesty push - those weren't sellouts or anything, right?
ooops. One more thing. I should read It.
Sometimes political reality is that John McCain and 13 other senators have agreed to prevent a hard conservative from being chosen.
With only a 55-45 lead in the Senate, what is political reality?
"I find it more disturbing that we even have to have this debate upon whether we like the candidate. There are plenty of obvious, brilliant, well qualified and EXPERIENCED candidates. Why are we given a stealth candidate, and we get a maybe good=maybe bad. Dissapointing."
Exactamundo! Bush has gone WIMP. Too afraid to fight the Rats and is now taking advice from Harry Reid on SC picks. Not only is she stealth, all the info we can detect is she is a pro choice, GORE supporter!
"No they don't. Conservatives just need to take back the Republican party from these betrayers."
We thought we did with Bush.
Unfortunately, these people - the McCains, Keans, Bushes, etc have money - LOTS of it. And they and their thinking is entrenched in the Republican Party.
And the only difference between the way they think and the Rockefellers, Kennedys, etc, is a matter of degree.
The only solution is the dissolution of the Republican Party and its replacement by a Conservative Party which is more reflective of the Republican base than these elitist limousine liberals are.
But that's just my take. You might be right, but who is on the horizon to step into Reagan's shoes? I certainly see no one.
The lady has never even been a judge.
That COULD be a good thing. Maybe she will bring some good ol' Texas common sense to the bench.
This isn't what I helped campaign for, as a volunteer; and it's not what I supported, with numerous (and substantial) cash donations.
I didn't know that looks were a qualification for carrying out their duties.
This is a good time to trot out a theory. I've been wondering whether Sandy O'Connor has been blackmailing the President on this nomination. I've thought all along that it's highly irregular for a sitting Supreme court justice to announce her retirement BUT... remain sitting until her replacement is confirmed. All it would take is another announcement that she is un-retiring if Bush nominated someone she didn't like. Sure, it would make waves, but what does she care? She's a Supreme Court Justice. She doesn't answer to anyone -- she's higher than the President.
I mean, what's the point of starting the term? She's not going to be around to vote on the cases. Why sit around and take up space if you're not going to be there to do the work of the court? Who ever heard of a lame duck judge? It doesn't make sense.
This could explain why the President has nominated someone that goes against the grain of everything he has professed to be looking for. She's old (60), has gone both ways in the past (swing nominee), cut in Sandy's image, and most of all, she's female.
Hate to say it, she's Sandy's pick. This also explains how the New York Times got the tip last week.
If she's as old as she looks, she'll be a short timer on the High Court. I thought W was looking for a long term impact ?
We can't dissolve the Republican Party, it's already been taken over by former democrats.
And Ronald Reagan was a Hollywood Elitist, who ran a labor union, and voted four times for FDR. So what? The Democrat party changed, not Reagan. Miers was conservative Dem in the Texas Democrat Party which was about all there was in Texas up until 15-20 years ago. There were very few Republicans and even fewer elected to anything.
Rehnquist was never a judge, Clarence Thomas was never a judge, O'Connor was never a judge. On the other hand, Souter was a judge. Now tell me that matters?
That's more reasonable. We have a two-party system. Although it's not explicitly in the constitution, the way things are set up results in it. I think something more formal might be useful. A 'party' if you want to call it that. However, the goal would be more unity among conservatives (establishing agreed upon principles and goals) and to take back the Republican party, not competing head-to-head with both Republicans and Democrats.
She supported Phil Gramm for PRes in '96 and Pete Sessions too when he was starting ....
Cool ... she's no RINO supporter.
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.