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 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 381-392 next last
To: KingKongCobra
Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

Great arguments you've made the last several days KKC. Really, very helpful to open debate.

41 posted on 10/07/2005 9:47:27 PM PDT by JerseyHighlander
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: John Lenin
I haven't the slightest problem with those who wish to collect information on Miers, it provides some insight about the unknown before the conformation hearings we will witness soon.

I do have a problem with those who prematurely condemn her and demand she step down without merit. I have a problem with those who stand on the soap box and scream they're voting for Hillary and other such nonsense like the party is doomed, all is lost, its pure lunacy and should be disregarded.

They wish to condemn her for Orwellian thought crimes she hasn't even had the opportunity to commit. They demand impossible promises, and hold no faith in judgment by our president when he has chosen wisely a high percentage of the time.

Let the cards fall where they may, and hope for the best. This may not be the last nominee by our current president as he may gain the opportunity of selecting a third Justice.
42 posted on 10/07/2005 9:49:45 PM PDT by TheForceOfOne (It was a village of idiots that raised Hillary to Senator status.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Do not dub me shapka broham

Ahhh, so if you don't join the little club you get smeared when someone nominates you for USSC, is that it? Perhaps she didn't have time for club activities because she was too busy working.


43 posted on 10/07/2005 9:51:08 PM PDT by McGavin999 (We're a First World Country with a Third World Press (Except for Hume & Garrett ))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Do not dub me shapka broham

Moonbat alert!


44 posted on 10/07/2005 9:52:58 PM PDT by TheForceOfOne (It was a village of idiots that raised Hillary to Senator status.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: hsalaw
Miers may turn out to be "in the mold" or Thomas of Scalia.

It's possible, but not plausible.

Then again, Gary Hart "may" win the 2008 presidential election.

I don't think either scenario-though theoretically possible-has more than an extremely remote chance of ever occurring.

45 posted on 10/07/2005 9:54:26 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 38 | View Replies]

To: Urbane_Guerilla

As in smirking chimp?

Sniff sniff


46 posted on 10/07/2005 9:57:46 PM PDT by TheForceOfOne (It was a village of idiots that raised Hillary to Senator status.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
And, yes, you are, indeed, a dolt.

I may very well be a dolt. I have been humbled by reading Hugh Hewitt, disagreeing with him (in my mind) and then eventually realizing he was right all along.

That may happen here, in some respect. But in another respect, it will not. W is not my personal leader. He is not a man who believes in constitutional government. I am not bound to believe him.

The Miers decision was one some folks anticipated for 30 years. It came down to a moment. With an opportunity to completely and perfectly respond to the moment, W instead decided to nominate a retainer who was a cypher.

After that moment, I do not care. It was a smirk moment. Apart from how it all turns out, it was a moment of selfishness and betrayal.

I have always appreciated and respected your remarks Sink, but in this instance I disagree with you.

47 posted on 10/07/2005 9:59:42 PM PDT by Urbane_Guerilla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: McGavin999
Yet another (unconvincing) justification for her failure to express any strong political or philosophical convictions in the public square.

She didn't refuse to join the Federalist Society because she was "busy working," but because she didn't believe in its goals.

It's that simple.

48 posted on 10/07/2005 9:59:51 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 43 | View Replies]

To: West Coast Conservative
She may turn out to be a justice in the mold of Scalia and Thomas. We just don't know enough yet.

You are right, we do not know how she will turn out.
But we do know she is not a nominee in the mold of Thomas or Scalia.

49 posted on 10/07/2005 9:59:56 PM PDT by msnimje (If you suspect this post might need a sarcasm tag..... it does!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: MississippiMan
MississippiMan wrote: {He had even less of a judicial paper trail than MsMiers.} Uh, Clarence Thomas was a JUDGE, no? Ms. Miers has never been a judge, right? I'd love to hear the logic behind your statement.

Thomas was a judge in the DC appeals court for only a short time, and he didn't write ant law review articles either.

At the time he was as much of a cipher as Ms Miers.

50 posted on 10/07/2005 10:02:56 PM PDT by quidnunc (Omnis Gaul delenda est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Urbane_Guerilla
Watch out for the Bushbots
.
51 posted on 10/07/2005 10:04:19 PM PDT by ArcadeQuarters
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Urbane_Guerilla

Thomas but not Scalia. Again: Thomas was derided as a cynical choice because of the thinness of his resume.


52 posted on 10/07/2005 10:05:08 PM PDT by RobbyS ( CHIRHO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
How could Republican senators vote against Miers when the voted almost unanimously to confirm Ginsburg and Breyer?

Anybody doing that would be eaten alive during their next election campaign

53 posted on 10/07/2005 10:07:13 PM PDT by quidnunc (Omnis Gaul delenda est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Old Seadog

You have a GAL like Thomas. But let her speeak for herself. That's the purpose of the hearings.


54 posted on 10/07/2005 10:07:41 PM PDT by RobbyS ( CHIRHO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: quidnunc
No he wasn't.

The fact that you insist upon repeating this timeworn canard-ad nauseum-should indicate how manifestly weak your argument is.

55 posted on 10/07/2005 10:08:06 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 50 | View Replies]

To: West Coast Conservative
She may turn out to be a justice in the mold of Scalia and Thomas. We just don't know enough yet.

That's right. OR.... she may turn out in the mold of Souter.

See, this is why everybody is so disgusted with Bush. There was no need for the slightest uncertainty.

56 posted on 10/07/2005 10:08:20 PM PDT by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Urbane_Guerilla

You sound trollish..


57 posted on 10/07/2005 10:08:59 PM PDT by MEG33 (GOD BLESS OUR ARMED FORCES)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: msnimje

And what was Thomas resume when he was nominated? Thiner than that of a hundred other possibilities.


58 posted on 10/07/2005 10:09:01 PM PDT by RobbyS ( CHIRHO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: msnimje
But we do know she is not a nominee in the mold of Thomas or Scalia.

How many times does the National Review article, from 1991, which states that Clarence Thomas was "an unknown, more in the mold of David Souter" have to be posted?

Clarence Thomas was an affirmative action pick, and, like Miers, was characterized by GHWBush as "the most qualified candidate available." That description was derided by liberal and conservative media.

Clarence Thomas was as much a cipher as Harriett Miers.

59 posted on 10/07/2005 10:09:28 PM PDT by sinkspur (American Staffordshire Terriers should be bred out of existence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Lancey Howard

And again: Souter did not work with Bush senior; Bush hardly knew the man. He took the word of Sununu and Rudman. His resume proved to be NO indicator of his future decisions.


60 posted on 10/07/2005 10:11:18 PM PDT by RobbyS ( CHIRHO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 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