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 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 381-392 next last
To: Urbane_Guerilla
It is a matter of calling out a charlatan, who pretended to be one of our own.

"Our own" what?

You're certainly not speaking for the vast majority of people on this forum.

81 posted on 10/07/2005 10:28:13 PM PDT by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Spiff
And the president didn't promise someone who MIGHT somehow, miraculously be a justice in the mold of Thomas and Scalia - he promised to nominate somebody who already was in that mold. Miers is not, nor do I doubt she will ever be, a Thomas or Scalia.

Wow ... an amazingly right-on comment.

82 posted on 10/07/2005 10:28:28 PM PDT by Urbane_Guerilla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Urbane_Guerilla
When W made his promise, we knew who Thomas and Scalia were

And so did he.

Why don't you wait until you're sure he's screwed you before you damn him to hell?

83 posted on 10/07/2005 10:29:48 PM PDT by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: McGavin999
What you are seeing is the lie put to the "true conservatives" assertion that they want judges that are not activists. The truth is they want their own Warren court and they are every bit as willing to destroy any nominee that does not share their zeal. I am as sick of the far right as I am of the far left.
84 posted on 10/07/2005 10:30:17 PM PDT by Texasforever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: DCPatriot
Don't pay attention to the far right extremists...

You mean The Wrist Slitting Right?

85 posted on 10/07/2005 10:30:40 PM PDT by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Acts 2:38
NO ONE knows...but we would have had a much better idea with a Luttig or Jones.

BUT WE DON'T

Why do you all INSIST on rehashing this over and over?

It was his pick; he made it; it's over; now leave the party if you don't like it.

86 posted on 10/07/2005 10:31:46 PM PDT by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: KingKongCobra
I won't argue on those points, but here's the dig,

Even after the nomination hearings we won't know anything about the woman.

She'll answer questions as the Senators wanted them answered. We won't get any deep revelations, we won't hear even a summary description of her judicial philosophy, we won't hear a single position she has on any issue because she'll take the Ginsburg defense.

All we'll know is whether or not she's quick on her feet, the level of her preparation to manufacture her first public persona to absorb the blathering Senators rambling ego trips of questions, and what her voice sounds like when she's talking into Congressional mics.

87 posted on 10/07/2005 10:33:06 PM PDT by JerseyHighlander
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: Nephi
In fact, he's proven to conservatives that he can't be trusted.

Of course, you mean YOURSELF as a conservative.

Because I'm one, too, and you certainly don't speak for me.

88 posted on 10/07/2005 10:33:43 PM PDT by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur

Reading your posts on several threads, anyone who complains about Miers seems to be a dolt in your book. So we all have to trust Bush on this lifelong appointment? I don't think so.


89 posted on 10/07/2005 10:34:04 PM PDT by Blowtorch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Urbane_Guerilla
W has already spoken: "I offer a cypher. I do not grant you the dignity of offering you anything you could possibly know. I don't deal in life that way, I deal in life by fiat."

Now you're showing your true colors.

90 posted on 10/07/2005 10:35:52 PM PDT by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur; Stellar Dendrite
The Knights of Columbus comparison is flawed.

A more apt analogy would be a member of the College of Cardinals who was eligible to be selected as the next pontiff, but who had spent sixty years of his life desperately avoiding comment on any controversial doctrinal issue.

Miers rejected the Fed. Society-and if you want confirmation of this you can just punch up the revelatory pieces published recently in the WSJ by writers like Dan Heninger and John Fund-for either of two reasons:

1. She wanted to avoid being tied to any controversial-read Constitutionalist-judicial philosophy,

or

2. She has no such philosophy to speak of, and merely arrives at her views on an ad hoc, Justice Burger-like basis.

Neither possibility is comforting in the least.

91 posted on 10/07/2005 10:36:11 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 69 | View Replies]

To: Dane
It was when the rats brought out anita hill, that put him over the top.

That's what has been lingering in my mind this whole week; the Democrats actually gave him the seat by the way they acted.

92 posted on 10/07/2005 10:37:28 PM PDT by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
Why don't you wait until you're sure he's screwed you before you damn him to hell?

Yes, but how long do we have to wait? Weeks? Months? Years? Once we find out it will have been too late to do anything about it anyways, except damn the President.
93 posted on 10/07/2005 10:38:32 PM PDT by Blowtorch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: Do not dub me shapka broham
Game, set, match.

Only if you're playing "Ineffectual Politics: How Not to Ever Put Yourself in A Position of Power."

94 posted on 10/07/2005 10:38:46 PM PDT by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Blowtorch
Reading your posts on several threads, anyone who complains about Miers seems to be a dolt in your book. So we all have to trust Bush on this lifelong appointment? I don't think so.

No. That's not true.

Those who are calling for Miers to step down, or for Bush to withdraw her nomination are, indeed, dolts.

Give her a hearing. Let her share her views with the Senators, and with us. If she fails, she will go.

95 posted on 10/07/2005 10:39:05 PM PDT by sinkspur (American Staffordshire Terriers should be bred out of existence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
I hear people say all the time — including pundits like Rush and Laura Ingraham — that they are conservatives first and foremost and Republicans second.

My question for these people is, if they make a point of not being loyal to the Republican Party then why should that expect any loyalty from the Republican Party?

96 posted on 10/07/2005 10:39:29 PM PDT by quidnunc (Omnis Gaul delenda est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: Urbane_Guerilla
Not that it is very relevant or informative, but how do you account for the smirk?

Are you really THIS dumb?

He got it from HIS MOTHER.

You're a troll.

97 posted on 10/07/2005 10:40:16 PM PDT by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Blowtorch

The conservative base wanted a sure thing. Miers is an unknown. I have no doubt she will be confirmed, so we have no choice but to hope for the best.


98 posted on 10/07/2005 10:40:22 PM PDT by Blowtorch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: JerseyHighlander
Do you know that you just proved my point about open debate?

It doesn't matter to you how she performs in the hearings and I'm supposed to engage you in an intelligent discussion?
99 posted on 10/07/2005 10:40:46 PM PDT by KingKongCobra (Trying to save the "Donner Party" from themselves.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: JerseyHighlander

Almost as good as yours.


100 posted on 10/07/2005 10:41:31 PM PDT by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 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