Posted on 10/04/2005 7:33:33 PM PDT by jdm
Edited on 10/04/2005 7:41:50 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
WASHINGTON -- Senators beginning what ought to be a protracted and exacting scrutiny of Harriet Miers should be guided by three rules. First, it is not important that she be confirmed. Second, it might be very important that she not be. Third, the presumption -- perhaps rebuttable but certainly in need of rebutting -- should be that her nomination is not a defensible exercise of presidential discretion to which senatorial deference is due.
(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...
Torie, the potus said today that she was the most qualified person for the job. You have just admitted that she's probably not. If you disagree with the potus, then how can you trust him on this pick?
You seem to want to ignore the fact that Democrats controlled the Senate at that time.
Blacks were elected to Congress after the Civil War.
Potus was engaging in hyperbole. Oh the horror!
The point I was after though, is that picking a solid, known Conservative would have driven the dems nuts. And their crazy rants during these hearings would have benefitted Republicans. All Bush had to do was give them the rope. Even if they vote down the first nominee, send a MORE Conservative nominee the next time. Republicans win all the way around. Jeez, where's Joshua Chaimberlain when you need him?
:-)
Line item vetos apply to appropriation bills. The President should have vetoed the bill if he felt it was not Constitutional. Simple as that.
I support Roberts. Now answer my questions.
I agree with your description....lol
Glad I decided to read this thread. Won't waste anymore time listening to a certain radio show. But I bet there are a lot of DU'ers that are ecstatic by what happened here tonight so losing me as a listener will be taken up by 3 of them!
Answer my questions.
Yep.
"I don't think blacks voted after the Civil War."
You may be right - I was just going by when they passed the 15th ammendment
Isn't that like asking, "wouldn't you feel better if the new president of our corporation used to be the head of another corporation?" My answer is, "no", "not necessarily". A "newby" (for lack of a better term) isn't necessarily a bad thing. Do we need to know more about her? Absolutely. Should we damn her before we even get past the first days of even hearing about her? Absolutely NOT! Even the most sound mind with an ounce of intelligence would say that THAT would be absurd! Those who had their undies in an uproar yesterday and today are, IMHO, reactionaries. Like those on DU, like ultra-libs. They do not reason with their minds, they react with their emotions. The house is NOT on fire. Someone smelled smoke and the rumors spread like a wildfire that hadn't even begun yet. I'm done. I will wisely wait, listen and learn before I decide anything. I feel like I'm ranting....maybe I am....yep, I am. :)
Wrong.
I was totally duped too.
Democratic operatives are just so much smarter than the rest of us.
We should all lie face down on the sidewalks and let them put a bullet through our heads as a symbol of our gullibility and unworthiness.
Bush doesn't owe Pat anything; he just owes it to the Constitution... but since when has that mattered with him?
Now that I think about it, you are correct. Fredrick Douglas is one that comes to mind.
I can't argue with you. My feeling since this was announced has been that while this may turn out to be fine, was it really the best possible selection he could make for SCOTUS on Oct. 3, 2005? If he didn't want to pick the fight it would take to get Brown on the court, and if he was set on choosing a woman, why not Consuelo Callahan or some of the others who had been mentioned? But as I've said in this thread, I think rejection of this nomination would be a catastrophic defeat for this administration and is no guarantee that we'd get anyone better on the second go-around. Because those who think otherwise, those who think it would prod the president into naming somebody more to our liking ... I'm not ashamed to say my No. 1 choice was Brown, and if they didn't want to chance that I favored Callahan among the others ... are basically disagreeing with the premise that I expressed in the post you responded to, that this is already a weakened White House that is not likely to be strengthened in the grand scheme of things by a defeat of that magnitude, whether it pulls the base into line or not.
You are sloppy in your wording. I do not believe you mean that I'm free to buy votes directly.
You are also sloppy in your history. You missed a major phrase in the the First Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.This normal (non crit-lit) interpretation would be that I can say anything I want in public or private, and I am free to print and distribute the same. To believe as you do, I would have to believe that the Founders had free (as in beer) printers and ink and paper, which would be required if limiting money would not also limit the printing press.
Freedom of the press means that anybody who owns or can rent a printing press is free to print and distribute whatever speech they want. And that takes money.
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.