Posted on 10/05/2005 4:03:47 PM PDT by perfect stranger
It was hardly "gutsy". She mentioned the RKBA only very quickly among a bunch of other rights listed in the Constitution. It was not by any stretch of the imagination the focus of her comments. Instead, her solution centered around a bunch of it-takes-a-village, Hillary Clinton style nonsense about dealing with what she considered the "root causes" of crime, none of which had anything to do with the lack of availability of guns in the right hands. There was nothing indicating that she was even making a specific response to the gun grabbers at all.
He was boozing it up in the 80's, by his own admission. So was I for that matter. It's not an insult, it's just history.
"It's when those inside the 70 percent get ugly from their disappointment and make silly statements designed to make our President look inept."
Oh, so it's my fault he nominated an unknown crony to the SCOTUS and thereby made himself look inept.
As an aside, please advise me just what "silly" statements I've made that make Bush look inept.
Thank you.
More nonsense. If we listened to your defeatist attitude, Roe v. Wade would never be reversed.
Plenty of bad decisions have been reversed. And it will take more folks like Clarence Thomas, and less like Scalia who is a conservative activist insted of a literalist.
Phew, I appreciate it. I dont mean to be an ass, this subject to me is frustrating on all levels from all sides. At least with you I am not attempting to argue law :0)
All I meant was that Miers may not speak as well as Roberts, who would be hard to beat.
But in her own way, I expect her to aquit herself well. She is a very smart woman.
"You took that position when you lumped the definate no's with the waiting for infos that's how you asserted it."
I took what position when I "lumped the definate no's with the waint for infos that's how you asserted it."
You really need to be more coherent. I'm really struggling to follow your logic. Is it Boolean?
She wasn't luke warm. She was adamantly against him. Now she doesn't like Miers because she ought be like Roberts. I didn't agree with her, but I thought her condemnation of the Roberts choice was genuine. Now I'm not so sure.
I read your response and basically I agree. Any nominee is a gamble, but why not trim the odds as much as possible? Picking a known conservative is less of a gamble than picking someone who has never made her opinion public, or had to fight to defend it.
I understand your position, but I trust Bush to give us a competent true conservative. I think the lack of prior visibility on her part is a shrewd political calculation to outmanuever the Dems. I don't think the Senate is strong enough to approve a Janice Rodgers Brown and BUsh knows it.
But, tagging her as nothing but a crony, demeans her and my President.
All nominees are unproven. He has such a history with her, i do not see how he could be mistaken on her true beliefs. And I don't care what anyone says, a judge's beliefs show themselves in their opinions.
No one can escape who they are.
Like hell. Any clear literalist like Brown would be extreme to them.
They would bolt the gang, and we'd go "nucular".
Nope. The RINOs left that door open for them.
Not to mention the pressure they would get from their constituents.
Oh, yeah, sure, the citizens of Maine will rise up against Snowe and Collins to toss them out of office for opposing JRB.
What IS the color of the sky on your planet?
Arlen Spector had to basically apologize so he could be Chairman again. That happened because of pressure from US.
Yeah, and he's got six more years and probably won't run again. And Specter aint' the problem here anyway.
Those Senators would not be my first choice as foxhole buddies, but they all have one thing in common. They want to get re-elected.
And they are mostly from RINO-prone states.
"Phew, I appreciate it. I dont mean to be an ass, this subject to me is frustrating on all levels from all sides. At least with you I am not attempting to argue law :0)"
Same here. I have a JD myself, but I admit all of the complexity this issue involves has me frustrated from all sides as well. In that, you are not alone.
Bush is not about appearances. By all appearances, the left is afraid of Bush. In this case he has picked a nominee that 1.) is bound to stick with originalist interpretation and application of the Constitution, and 2.) does NOT have a jurist's track record for Nina Totenburger to snarf into her mullet brain.
I hope Totenburger and her ilk choke ten-fold for the grief they handed Clarence Thomas over the "seriousness of the charges." This nomination is just one small part of the choke factor the left is experiencing.
Yes, it was gutsy. She mentioned the Tower sniper. She didn't flinch from demanding that rights be maintained in the face of demands for greater safety.
That's gutsy.
How many black votes would the Republicans pick up after the televised lynching of Brown by the dems? Besides, Clarence Thomas was confirmed by a Democratic Senate.
Now there's a "conservative" Maureen Dowd.
Is that why Harry Reid likes her so much?
Sorry I have a prblem with writing respoonses as if they were in the same paragraph as to what I am responding to, at the time to me they are coherent and then I post it and sometimes I get lost in my own work. I blame it on carbamazepine.
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.