Posted on 10/07/2005 8:51:48 PM PDT by Urbane_Guerilla
I plan on taking all the money I save from buying their books and spending it on the primary challangers for every republican who has made snide comments without waiting for a hearing. Good grief, we're acting almost as bad as those brain dead democrats.
It takes a lot of chutzpah to label over 25% of Freepers "same old malcontents and unappeasables".
You don't even pretend to care about insulting 25% of the poll respondents on FR, or the effects that has on debate and discussion here.
Exactly, Rush is in a "holding pattern". You'd think some of Conservative pundits would do the same thing.
"Liberty and freedom are the fundamental truth of human existence."
That gave me a chuckle.
You must lie to yourself before you can lie to others.
"...the fundamental truth of human existence." Goodness. You do like sweeping generalizations.
How about these statements concerning the realities of human nature: "Death and Taxes". "Stupid and stupider". Perhaps "There is a limit to the Universe but no limit to human stupidity." Perhaps substitute "absurdity" for "stupidity".
Aren't those fun? Aren't they more true than mere sophism?
Actually you devised the analogy. It's been debunked for what it is, garbage.
I didn't vote for the charlatan, I voted against him, because I knew that the charlatan would appoint Ginsberg-types all over the federal court system.
Bush has an impressive track record in the federal court system. Calling him a charlatan puts you on the same level as a TROLL.
The smirk is the elder Bush non-vision thing. Hey, we are dolts! and we defy you! we are rich and privileged! We are Kennebunkport, you are voodoo!
This is what happens when you drink and freep.
Nobody's denying that.
Do you really think she was the best pick GW could have made?
Yes, I do -- because he has absolutely NO GUARANTEE that the gutless wonders we call senators will back him up, period.
Look what they did to him in May with that Gang crap; you see, they all look at him as a lame duck now and are all making their moves, while we, the people who elected him AND them, sit here in 2005, after having felt like we were robbed of 4 years because of the closeness of 2000, expecting these last years to be "our" four years -- the ones we've worked so hard at, the ones where WE were going to get what we've been waiting for -- only to discover that our own senators suck and are basically going for themselves. I am furious about it, but I know it's the truth. Saying "we could have" or "we should have" just doesn't get it; it's just NOT doable.
Were there not more qualified picks with top-notch credentials?
I think there were, but I certainly don't know as much as Bush knows.
All will have to wait to see if GWB's choice benefits the court in the way conservatives have hoped.
While you're waiting, why not look at the big picture and see that a lot of this debacle belongs right at the feet of the Gang of 14. They almost guaranteed that the nominee would have to be mediocre.
And while you're pondering that, ask yourself this: you have to consider the fact that the Democrats LOVE having O'Conner on that court; and if Bush had sent up somebody controversial, they would have held it up until the end of time because the Dems got her to say she's stay until a replacement was seated.
Who would you ratheer have ruling on the next partial birth abortion case, O'Conner or Miers?
It may be hard-I'll concede that much-but it's not out of the realm of possibility.
Sandra Day O'Connor, despite her failings-and they were manifold-was at the very least somewhat committed to the concept of federalism.
We don't even know that much about Harriet Miers.
Nodding head in emphatic agreement.
Up to and including the first paragraphs of your post.
Doesn't make it fact.
Great link-thanks.
I did not analogize her to Pope Benedict, nor did I compare her to Chief Justice John Marshall, or even to Justice Potter Stewart.
All of these flights of fancy seem to be occurring on your side of the aisle.
Precisely.
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.
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.
Damning with faint praise, I guess is all I'm doing, but those who see some revelation coming forth in the US Senate Committee on the Judiciary nomination hearings for harriet Miers are going to be rudely awakened.
Why should the White House even need to herd recalcitrant conservative columnists into line?
The qualifications of a future Supreme Court justice should not even be at issue.
I reiterate, the damage is done.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but does that sound like the former Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger to you?
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.