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

Skip to comments.

THE ULTIMATE TROJAN HORSE?
RealClearPolitics.com ^ | October 5, 2005 | Tom Bevan

Posted on 10/05/2005 10:29:24 AM PDT by new yorker 77

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140141-152 next last
To: Southack
I'm not saying that the Democrats-and feckless, weak-kneed Republicans-don't bear some culpability for foiling many of his domestic policies that I supported.

Or that he's done nothing of substance to attempt to reduce abortions, efforts that were ultimately thwarted by "radicals in robes."

What I am saying is that the domestic policies he prioritized-tax cuts aside-were misguided.

There is no justification for his signature of the McCain-Feingold bill, the most blatantly unconstitutional piece of legislation to be considered-let alone enacted-by the United States Congress in recent memory.

There is no conceivable defense of an energy bill that was stripped of its most promising assets-and again, I'm not necessarily ascribing blame for this outcome solely to President Bush-or a farm bill that can be described by no adjective other than "awful."

And that goes double for the obscene transportation bill.

121 posted on 10/05/2005 1:37:38 PM PDT by Do not dub me shapka broham ("I'm okay with being unimpressive. It helps me sleep better.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: Do not dub me shapka broham
"There is no justification for his signature of the McCain-Feingold bill, the most blatantly unconstitutional piece of legislation to be considered-let alone enacted-by the United States Congress in recent memory."

Signing McCain-Feingold was brilliant...as it de-fanged that entire political attack against Bush.

The fly in the ointment was that SCOTUS ruled Mc-F to be LEGAL!

Future Courts won't be so error-prone. It is, however, important to place blame correctly...on the SCOTUS for that ruling, as they say that what President Bush signed was legal.

The correct outcome should have been for the bill to have been signed to de-fang the political attacks, then thrown out by the SCOTUS for being illegal.

122 posted on 10/05/2005 1:42:54 PM PDT by Southack (Media Bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: Do not dub me shapka broham
"And that goes double for the obscene transportation bill."

Only by appearances. In reality, the big Transport Bill **prevents** Congress from having unfettered access to those gas-tax highway funds...after all, whatever Congress doesn't approve for highways is left to be borrowed against or otherwise spent/abused in the General Fund.

Better to spend the gas tax funds on our highways than let Congress treat those revenues as if they came from income taxes, I'd say.

123 posted on 10/05/2005 1:45:52 PM PDT by Southack (Media Bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: Southack
Since when is it the Supreme Court's responsibility to invalidate pieces of bad legislation?

I've never trusted them to be the final arbiter of what is and is not Constitutional-and considering the dubious track record of prior Courts, that's been a pretty sound decision-but I do expect conservative, Republican leaders who are invested with the powers of the presidency-and who I've voted for repeatedly-to uphold and defend this nation's bedrock legal document, which is the cornerstone of our republic.

124 posted on 10/05/2005 1:49:28 PM PDT by Do not dub me shapka broham ("I'm okay with being unimpressive. It helps me sleep better.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: Paradox

So what is it when you cause your army to desert?


125 posted on 10/05/2005 1:53:31 PM PDT by Little Ray (I'm a reactionary, hirsute, gun-owning, knuckle dragging, Christian Neanderthal and proud of it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Do not dub me shapka broham
"Since when is it the Supreme Court's responsibility to invalidate pieces of bad legislation?"

Oh, please...

126 posted on 10/05/2005 1:55:59 PM PDT by Southack (Media Bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: kpp_kpp

"she has run a business"

"is going to make a huge difference to millions of Americans trying to do the same... even liberals."


I would hope and I quite fankly expect that she would be an effective advocate for small and medium business.

The more I see of "The Church Lady" the better I like her.


127 posted on 10/05/2005 1:57:06 PM PDT by TexanToTheCore (Rock the pews, Baby)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: TexanToTheCore
She's not being nominated to head up the Small Business Administration, or even the Treasury Department.

This is the Supreme Court.

128 posted on 10/05/2005 1:59:12 PM PDT by Do not dub me shapka broham ("I'm okay with being unimpressive. It helps me sleep better.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: Southack; Do not dub me shapka broham
"With all due respect, President Bush's domestic policy agenda-at least, that part of it that has been implemented-has left me underwhelmed."

Southack has got it right, but it's simpler than that. What part of his judicial appointment history (the ONLY thing relevant to this conversation) has left you underwhelmed? Look at the judges he put forward when he didn't have a Republican Senate!

129 posted on 10/05/2005 2:00:23 PM PDT by IMRight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: MortMan
Let me get this straight... Her OWN words and beliefs (and past actions) carry less weight than the words of an opposition leader?


#1. What words are you referring to? She has no paper trail.

#2. Only God knows her heart, mere mortals have to rely on past actions, opinions, etc.

#3. This is the SCOTUS here. "Trust me" does not cut it. I'm just a dude behind a keyboard, so my opinion matters zilch. But Sam Brownback and Trent Lott have reservations, not to mention the Mark Levin, George Will, National Review types. Harry Reid likes her. That my friend is a major red flag whether you want to admit it or not.
130 posted on 10/05/2005 2:02:11 PM PDT by handy (Forgive me this day, my daily typos...The Truth is not a Smear!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Prost1
The founding fathers wrote a simple document, the Constitution. It would not have been ratified without the Bill of Rights. The 1st 6 Rights were not sufficient to win approval. The founders had to add 4 more Rights (and reach the mystical number 10). The 10th Amendment was absolutely necessary for passage.

There was nothing mystical about the 10 amendments in the "Bill of Rights"

Twelve were submitted to the states for ratification, and the first two were not ratified at the time. So, the "hyper-important First Amendment" was actually submitted as the Third!

131 posted on 10/05/2005 2:07:06 PM PDT by BohDaThone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Do not dub me shapka broham

"She's not being nominated to head up the Small Business Administration, or even the Treasury Department. "

Neither the SBA nor the Treasury Dept establish case law. The SC does.


132 posted on 10/05/2005 2:13:58 PM PDT by TexanToTheCore (Rock the pews, Baby)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: Do not dub me shapka broham
Since when is it the Supreme Court's responsibility to invalidate pieces of bad legislation?

Since the ratification of the Constitution. Article III, Section 2 begins with the following words:

The Judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;

That seems clear to me, but perhaps you interpret it differently.

(The capitalization and grammar are in the original, the emphasis is mine).

133 posted on 10/05/2005 3:08:58 PM PDT by derlauerer (The truth of a proposition has nothing to do with its credibility. And vice-versa. - R. A. Heinlein)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: blackie

"I will not not argue with you about what might be, all I know is ~ what is. ;)"


Well, certainly this appointment is what it is.
Whatever that may be...

I'd say what it "is", is a nice conservative lady who will probably vote right on abortion, probably be very tolerant of the gay agenda, probably be otherwise pretty conservative.
And I'd say what it also "is", is a choice that stuns and disappoints the conservative base, because there's too much "trust me" being demanded here on something too important.

And I'll also say what "is", is that pro-choice Republicans like Shays who used to get my vote for the sake of the caucus, won't anymore. And that means that the Democrats are very probably going to pick up a seat in the House from Connecticut, because it's always close here, and his Democratic rival isn't a wingnut. I suppose the loss of some seats in Congress don't really matter.


134 posted on 10/05/2005 3:13:45 PM PDT by Vicomte13 (Et alors?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: derlauerer
Let me rephrase my previous statement.

Since when is it the responsibility of the Supreme Court to rectify the mistakes of a president who signed atrocious pieces of legislation into law?

I believe that was the implication of Southack's prior assertion.

No?

The idea that the current Supreme Court, the author of Kelo, Lawrence-among a host of other abominable decisions, which demonstrated absolutely no regard for precedent, or the proper function of the judicial branch for that matter-would have any consideration for its Constitutionally-prescribed role is patently absurd.

It is the Supreme Court's role to invalidate unconstitutional laws, whether they are construed by the general public as being favorable or detrimental to their interests, and it has failed miserably in that capacity.

What makes you think that a thoroughly substandard nominee, who has shown no inclination to buck fashionable currents in elite opinion, or to enumerate any firm, decisive opinions on weighty Constitutional matters, is going to improve the Supreme Court as it now stands?

135 posted on 10/05/2005 3:27:13 PM PDT by Do not dub me shapka broham ("I'm okay with being unimpressive. It helps me sleep better.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: BohDaThone

"There was nothing mystical about the 10 amendments in the "Bill of Rights" "

Boy, talk about humor impaired. I guess you need to review the fact that nearly every "father" was a member of a "secret society", the $bill has an Eye and Pyramid, and numbers were important symbolisms.

Because the history or numerolgoy is not taught today does not mean it did not have significance at a time or the time of the founding.

I have not checked, but the numbers 1,2,3,5,7 and 10 are all important numbers.

Maybe someone here is aware of numerology in scripture and history and can elucidate further.


136 posted on 10/05/2005 3:36:18 PM PDT by Prost1 (New AG, Berger is still free, copped a plea! I still get my news from FR!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: Prost1

"I have not checked, but the numbers 1,2,3,5,7 and 10 are all important numbers.
Maybe someone here is aware of numerology in scripture and history and can elucidate further."

Happy to oblige.

"1" is important because it's the first number. Also because it reminds people of a unique appendage.

"2" is important because it's the first EVEN number, and also the first prime number. And it takes two to maximize the utility of the aforementioned appendage.

"3", "5" and "7" are interesting because they are prime numbers.

"10" is cool because that's the number of fingers what we got. Or toes, depending on what floats your boat.

And, most interestingly, when you add them all together, it comes to 28, which is precisely 4 more than the number of letters in "The United States of America".

And 4, of course, is the number of letters in the state with the shortest name ("Iowa"), which wasn't even a state yet, which proves just how prescient the Founding Fathers were!


137 posted on 10/05/2005 4:07:09 PM PDT by Vicomte13 (Et alors?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: Do not dub me shapka broham; Southack
Let me rephrase my previous statement.

Since when is it the responsibility of the Supreme Court to rectify the mistakes of a president who signed atrocious pieces of legislation into law?

Fair enough, when you phrase it that way.

I believe that was the implication of Southack's prior assertion.

No?

Maybe it was, but I took it literally - a sometimes unfortunate tendency of mine. Maybe Southack himself would like to comment on our difference of understanding of his words.

138 posted on 10/05/2005 5:15:48 PM PDT by derlauerer (The truth of a proposition has nothing to do with its credibility. And vice-versa. - R. A. Heinlein)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: Do not dub me shapka broham
The idea that the current Supreme Court, the author of Kelo, Lawrence-among a host of other abominable decisions, which demonstrated absolutely no regard for precedent, or the proper function of the judicial branch for that matter-would have any consideration for its Constitutionally-prescribed role is patently absurd.

Not necessarily; I agree with you that the decisions you mention (and others) have been abominable. I disagree that these decisions gave no regard to the proper function of the judicial branch. However bad the decisions themselves may have been, they were based on what a majority of the Justices of the Supreme Court believed was sound reasoning.

I am not arguing that the reasoning was sound - only that those who made it believed it to be so. Given that, I believe it is the case that the Court respects and seeks to fulfill its Constitutionally-prescribed role, at least by its own lights.

It is the Supreme Court's role to invalidate unconstitutional laws, whether they are construed by the general public as being favorable or detrimental to their interests, and it has failed miserably in that capacity.

Here, we agree completely.

What makes you think that a thoroughly substandard nominee, who has shown no inclination to buck fashionable currents in elite opinion, or to enumerate any firm, decisive opinions on weighty Constitutional matters, is going to improve the Supreme Court as it now stands?

If I implied that I did think this, I apologize: I did not intend to imply any such thing. My actual opinion of the nomination of Harriet Miers is that, in the final analysis, I know too little to form an opinion based on that knowledge alone. Hopefully, the Senate Committee hearings will provide sufficient extra information to do so.

In the meantime, and failing further enlightenment from the hearings, I see the matter this way: It comes down to answering the question: "Do I trust the President's judgement?". My answer is "Yes". You may well have a different answer, in which case time will tell which of us was right.

139 posted on 10/05/2005 5:15:57 PM PDT by derlauerer (The truth of a proposition has nothing to do with its credibility. And vice-versa. - R. A. Heinlein)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: derlauerer
For me, this issue goes above and beyond mere "trust."

You trust the POTUS to appoint the correct people to fill cabinet and sub-cabinet-level agencies.

You trust him to appoint circuit court judges, perhaps.

You do not rely upon trust-and trust alone-when it comes to the single most important aspect of his presidency, short of being the Commander in Chief during a time of war.

I would invest all of my trust in Senator Orrin Hatch, were he the nominee for this position.

But if Senator Hatch came to me-or anyone else here-and proclaimed that I had to "trust" that he had correctly identified the next Scalia, or Thomas, or Sentelle, or Silberman, in Judicial Candidate X, Y or Z, the reaction would be vociferous and immediate.

Are you insane?!

140 posted on 10/05/2005 5:36:50 PM PDT by Do not dub me shapka broham ("I'm okay with being unimpressive. It helps me sleep better.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140141-152 next last

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.

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