My kinda judge!!Posted on 10/09/2005 3:28:25 PM PDT by Pukin Dog
What the h3ll are you doing, trying to make sense with some of these flash-in-the-pan @$$clowns? It's like you have STALKERS that just lurk until you post! Have you any IDEA how difficult it is for me to have to look up all those symbols instead of actually swearing? ;o)
If these jokers weren't so predaTorie, they'd do a little more reading. Take my my past post on another Pukin thread (which you paraphrased nicely earlier):
You mean if you write a thread and have YOUR NAME ON IT so people can choose whether or not to click and read further (knowing it's you) AHEAD OF TIME, and they STILL decide to click and read, and are disappointed (or something), they can STILL write Chicken Little posts and depress everyone? We don't have French benefits? What about beer for Laz?Do they know how annoying it is to have to read through all their crap? </Grrrrrr>
THANK YOU FOR PINGING ME TO THE THREAD!! You have said what I've been saying out in the real world, only you've said it better. This is STRATEGERY that's right up there with other moves that have left SOME of us breathless.
There is NO WAY he could have nominated a "conservative rock-star type" and gotten away with it! The RINOs and dims wouldn't have obstructed? Are these people ignoring that many of these "conservative rockstar types" have already been struck down previously?
Anyhoo, I am really cheesed at the Kool-Aid sippers I've been seeing here and there. Yes, we know he drank 25 years ago, yadda - yadda - yadda. I drank AND smoked pot 25 years ago! You ReidBots need to remember -- ah, I'll rant another time....
Welcome back!
Excellent summary of the reality of the Senate with the Rinos waiting to destroy any conservative nominee with a track history as a conservative judge.
Republicans should have dumped Spector from the Judicary when they had the chance.
My kinda judge!!Thanks for the ping to Puking Dog's Logic 101.
Carolyn
The bottom line is, you will hear apologies made for the GOP until we have about 70 Senators in office (IOW, the apologists will never stop). I can remember when we needed a bigger majority. Now we need 60. If we got to 60, you'd hear these folks claiming that we really need 65 because of the RINOs.
They use a moving target - there's no arguing with them.
Frankly though, no one needed insider information to suppose ALL of this. As I have said over and over and over on here on this subject: Those who complain that their favorite wasn't nominated do not have access to all of their favorite's papers, interview transcripts, or the Senate head count.
The President did. We've been happy with all his judicial nominations so far. Harriet Miers help him make to choices. This is a clearly conservative pick. Conservatives need to learn to cope (somehow) with winning.
Furthermore, when she passes she will put to rest the Democrats insistance on a Roe litmus test...because everyone KNOWS she's pro-life.
I wanted Miguel Estrada, but my desire does not mean it is possible in this universe. The same is true for whoever else you like (Luttig, Owens, Brown). Let's live in the real world, Conservatives.
Thx for the ping; good points, as usual, Dog. Stay well.
They won't be after 2006
Right On. I remember well, the great folks in South Dakota taking down the obstructionist Tiny Tom Dacsle. A lot of thoght that would do it. Then 5 more republicians were sent to the senate. We thought that would do it. But low and behold, the Gang of 14 Idiots are now the stopping point.
Where does it end... with 60 with 70?
Well, now...
So you're back...once again...after an opus. This time you have "inside" information to share with us.
Never mind...
Baloney, it would never happen, though I hope it would. If it did, Bush would be able to clean any RINO's clock who might oppose funding the troups.
Republicans are so incapable of playing the games of brinksmanship. The democrats know how to do it.
Bush just got through winning an election where for 4 years (except for the 6-9 months after 9/11/2004) he was subjected to unreserved bashing every day in the MSM. Everyone hates Congress, so playing a little brinksmanship with those paper tigers should be a piece of cake.
I don't know, but I suspect that there are many, many simultaneous back-room deals at any given moment that we don't know about. One Freeper posted (I forget who) that Bush signed CFR to keep McCain in line during the campaign (I don't know whether it's true, but it strikes me a plausible).
So? You can speculate about back-room deals until you are blue in the face. We have worked and waited for 25 years and now with a Republican Senate, a Republican House, and a Republican President all we hear are excuses. Pubs need to get off the bench, pick up a bat and helmet, get in the batter's box and take their best swing.
Libstripper-- wondering your opinions on this?
The big problem is she has played a significant role in WOT issues. That means she'll probably have to recuse herself from deciding any WOT case that comes before SCOTUS on which she gave advice to the President, which could easily be most of them. See http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1498313/posts
Thus, what appears on the surface to be one of her greatest strengths actually becomes one of her greatest weaknesses. A principled conservative who had not been directly involved in WOT deliberations would be able to rule on all such cases and support the President, instead of being hamstrung by mandatory recusals.
The most disturbing concern about this nomination comes from another one of Miers' admitted strengths, her great attention to detail. Since she's been the lead person in vetting all of the President's judicial nominees, she had to know the problems presented by the recusal statute. It's hard for me to believe that the President would have nominated her if she'd clearly explained the statute's applicability to her situation and that it would force her to recuse herself in many of the most important WOT case. That he nominated her tells me she probably didn't fully explain this problem to him. Thus, I seriously question her ethics since she was apparently so consumed by ambition to get on SCOTUS that she at lest soft pedaled this issue with her client.
BUMP!
Also, World Net Daily is known not to be big on Bush!
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.