Posted on 10/11/2005 6:14:59 AM PDT by Sometimes A River
"If nothing else, he owes it to the military votes that in large part elected him in 2000 to put on his manhood and fight for what's right."
No point on fighting if you are starting with a filibuster and you do not have the votes to overturn it.
In all fairness to Bush, he could have left O'Connor there until the Republicans knew they had the votes.
I've listened to the so-called glitterati, and I simply disagree with you. They ain't all that.
People are good at what they work on day in and day out. Give you 20 years of nothing but law 12 hours a day, and I'm gonna guess that you'll be able to spout it with anybody.
Some will depend on where you specialize. Go the political route, and I'll bet you get pretty fine-tuned in your understanding of the constitution.
So I guess Ginsburg is a brilliant legal mind. Good thing she is on the court. As well as Souter.
Wasn't Ginsburg approved 97-0? Apparently there were some Conservative Senators that voted for her.
"Whata buncha crap! If Miers was so brilliant, she would have written legal opinions somewhere over a 30 year career."
Attorneys don't write legal opinions.
I've always wondered if the "elite" consider themselves to be such. Now I know they do.
Sadly, I've got George Will grouped now with BaBra WaWa and BaBra Streisand.
It's a really weird collage.
I think it was planned.
I'd not be surprised that Laura even suggested the question that led to the response.
If she had said "no," then she would have been ignoring a reasonable theory.
There is one correct answer:
"Does your mother still regret not taking the RU-486 pill?"
What bothers me most about this statement by Laura Bush was that it was an intentional, dishonest libel against those who have been honest and forthright about their opposition to the Miers nomination.
It was disgraceful, and it showed Laura Bush's true character in an unfavorable light. Liberals do not hesitate to falsely accuse their opponents. Neither does Laura Bush.
Shameful.
>>But there HAVE been some sexist comments.<<
If you think Laura Bush's comments weren't as a broad-brush, cheap smear of the nominee's critics, I have a bridge I'll sell you.
Or it could be that people just don't like her because frogs are tadpoles before they are frogs.
I hope you see the logic here.
I could say that these are the reasons...but the real reason is because she is just not qualified and she does have skeletons in her closet...such as the scandal at the investment firm where when she was in charge, was under investigation for investment fraud which took money from the elderly and allowed the very wealthy to benefit from this scam.
Or it could be that she is not qualified.To be told by Bush that she is the best choice could be another reason why people are against her. I know she cannot possibly be the best choice when otheres who have more experience and a better track record are available.
But to say it is because she is a woman is just plain illogical and makes as much sense as the frogs or shrimp are the real reasons.
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.