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

Skip to comments.

READ MY LIPS: THOMAS AND SCALIA
Me | 10-7-02 | Me

Posted on 10/07/2005 8:51:48 PM PDT by Urbane_Guerilla

Don't you remember the utter let-down when elder Bush broke the fundamental promise he made, "No new taxes"?

The promise was not merely a bow to the Laffer curve, it was an emotional and pyschological statement to the many people in this country who still believe in constitutional goverment, and who knew that taxation was the means to undermine constitutional government, liberty and freedom, to put it another way.

The younger Bush promised a Thomas or Scalia for the same reasons: to tell the believers in constitutional government that supporting him would mean a definitive change in the jurisprudence of this country, jurisprudence which adhered to the basic concepts in our Constitution, not to a sort of current intellectual church of what's happening now.

In both cases, there was an even deeper issue, the issue of integrity. Integrity is the first principle of conservatism. Integrity means an unflinching openness to the facts and faithful adherence to principle.

"No new taxes," "Thomas and Scalia."

Unlike the Left, conservatives usually have the integrity to call out their own, regardless of political cost. The subtle political benefit of integrity is that there are so many people (conservatives) who vote for the politician who is actually honest.

Now, it is not a matter of calling out one of our own. It is a matter of calling out a charlatan, who pretended to be one of our own.


TOPICS: Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: elitism; harrietmiers; lookatme; runyourself; seminarposter; snob; supremecourt; supremevanity; vanitypost; worthlessvanity
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 181-200201-220221-240 ... 381-392 next last
To: Howlin
I don't suppose you consider it an insult to imply that the other 75 percent of us who don't agree with this mad rush to judgment and condemenation you all are so hell bent on are not "real" or "true" conservatives, and don't care or know about the Constitution or moral values or the United States Supreme Court, blah blah blah, right?

That is incoherent. It was not implied. Why is this being put into terms of a personal attack on your integrity? Why are you taking broad strokes at fellow conservatives? The 25%(granted it's the unscientific number from the current FR poll) are adamantly arguing that the entire Conservative movement would be better served in the process of selecting a nominee if one had been picked with an established record. Including those Miers supporters who are openly anti-elitist in their stance here and in their defense of Miers, including those who are Evangelicals, even including Freeper lawyers.

I don't see how you can accept this outside of rational purview.

201 posted on 10/07/2005 11:56:01 PM PDT by JerseyHighlander
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 183 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
You speak for yourself and no one else.

Been living under a rock lately? Like I said, Bush has let down a large portion of his base.

202 posted on 10/07/2005 11:57:16 PM PDT by doesnt suffer fools gladly (Bush haters are insane.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
Lots of judging a book by their cover going on on Free Republic.

More posts than one can number saying that she is not a conservative, she's a disaster, she's Souter, or she's Kennedy... how we've been duped, etc.

But no one knows...

Lot's of people running around believing that the world has come to an end...

Two things give me peace about the Mier nominations...

One, I do trust the President... if that makes me a Bushbot, so be it...

Two, she was his vetter. She was the gatekeeper. If Owens, Brown, Estrada, Roberts' names were ever going to be placed in nomination, they had to get by her. They did... which means that she agrees with their judicial philopsy.

Why don't those who are predicting gloom and doom understand that point...

You got Brown, Owens, Estrada because you have her.

203 posted on 10/07/2005 11:57:38 PM PDT by carton253 (It's better to have a gun and not need it than not have a gun and need it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 195 | View Replies]

To: TheForceOfOne
I think I remember Fred Barnes talking about some conservative pundit who said that even if she votes the correct way on all the issues she would still be considered unworthy of Supreme Court Justice.

Fred has gotten more unimpressive with each passing year.

204 posted on 10/07/2005 11:58:35 PM PDT by bkepley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 199 | View Replies]

To: Howlin

And when is the hearing scheduled again, I forgot.


Looked it up, October 18, 2005 is the tentative date.


205 posted on 10/07/2005 11:59:13 PM PDT by JerseyHighlander
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 189 | View Replies]

To: JerseyHighlander
By why does any nominee have to have an established record?

If an established record was the requirement for the Supreme Court, the founding fathers would have written that condition in.

They did not, leaving the Court open for nominees from all walks of life and not just judges with established records.

206 posted on 10/08/2005 12:00:10 AM PDT by carton253 (It's better to have a gun and not need it than not have a gun and need it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 201 | View Replies]

To: carton253; JerseyHighlander
But no one knows...

That bears repeating.

207 posted on 10/08/2005 12:01:10 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 203 | View Replies]

To: doesnt suffer fools gladly
Been living under a rock lately? Like I said, Bush has let down a large portion of his base.

I wouldn't some of these guys in a voting booth alone anyway.

208 posted on 10/08/2005 12:01:31 AM PDT by bkepley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 202 | View Replies]

To: doesnt suffer fools gladly
No kidding.

:(

209 posted on 10/08/2005 12:02:58 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 202 | View Replies]

To: doesnt suffer fools gladly

Your opinion only. A lot of people on here disagree with you.


210 posted on 10/08/2005 12:03:39 AM PDT by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 202 | View Replies]

To: JerseyHighlander
You're deluding yourself if you believe that a highly successful lawyer who if adept enough to network her way into leadership positions in the Dallas and Texas Bar is going to make a slip and reveal anything of substance in the dog n' pony show that is the examination technique of the US Senate Committee on the Judiciary.

She's been preparing for weeks, war rooming, using mock nomination scenarios, getting the questions she'll be asked fed to her by friendly Republicans on the Committee, she has at her disposal the last several years of sparring with the US Senate Committee on the Judiciary through proxies she has sent up to them, there is no great oratory tricks that Schumer will magically summon that will shoow us a glimpse of the real Harriet Miers.

Hmmmm, if she's that capable, then she's probably exactly the right pick.

211 posted on 10/08/2005 12:03:40 AM PDT by McGavin999 (We're a First World Country with a Third World Press (Except for Hume & Garrett ))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies]

To: JerseyHighlander

You're the one who said I was insulting 25 percent of the people on this forum.

I merely pointed out that it goes both ways, a concept that never seens to dawn on you purist.


212 posted on 10/08/2005 12:05:07 AM PDT by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 201 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
She's been preparing for weeks, war rooming, using mock nomination scenarios, getting the questions she'll be asked fed to her by friendly Republicans on the Committee

"An absolute lie; she didn't know until Sunday night."

Yes and no. His original premise was false but interestingly Miers was the one who pretended to be the democratic senators and grilled Roberts to practice for his testimony. So, I do suspect she's ready for those senators. LOL

213 posted on 10/08/2005 12:05:14 AM PDT by KingKongCobra (Trying to save the "Donner Party" from themselves.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 189 | View Replies]

To: carton253

I'm sure she picked those nominees just to throw everybody off.


214 posted on 10/08/2005 12:06:37 AM PDT by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 203 | View Replies]

To: Urbane_Guerilla

You are one of the type of people that would jump out of a boat because it might spring a leak. You have nothing to indicate Roberts and Miers won't vote exaclty as a Thomas or Scalia would. But keep ranting, you are doing the party a lot of good.

Ya Right!


215 posted on 10/08/2005 12:08:14 AM PDT by CMAC51
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KingKongCobra
That's not much in the way of a testimonial.

I seriously doubt that Senator Cornyn is going to be grilling her once these confirmation hearings begin.

216 posted on 10/08/2005 12:08:30 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 213 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
I'm sure she did too! LOL!

But the hysteria has been fun to watch...

217 posted on 10/08/2005 12:09:21 AM PDT by carton253 (It's better to have a gun and not need it than not have a gun and need it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 214 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
You're like a damned broken record

I'm sorry something has you upset. Here's something to help take you to your happy place:


218 posted on 10/08/2005 12:09:29 AM PDT by dagnabbit (Vincente Fox's opening line at the Mexico-USA summit meeting: "Bring out the Gimp!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: CMAC51
But you have nothing to indicate that they would.

See, that's the problem with "stealth" nominees.

You never know which way they might turn.

219 posted on 10/08/2005 12:09:45 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 215 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
Your opinion only. A lot of people on here disagree with you.

And many agree that Bush threw us under the bus.

220 posted on 10/08/2005 12:10:20 AM PDT by doesnt suffer fools gladly (Bush haters are insane.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 210 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 181-200201-220221-240 ... 381-392 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