Posted on 10/11/2005 12:49:28 PM PDT by Stellar Dendrite
At least that nick would have accuracy going for it!
Have you seen this buzz? http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1500781/posts
You might enjoy this one: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/1500781/posts?page=24
Sadly, I agree with you.
Tried. Stymied by RINO Congress. Took what he could.
He produced a set of numbers during the debate which we all knew were way underestimating the cost. Now they admit that.
Sure looks that way. Could be politics, you think? Prescription drug benefit was gonna happen. Bush's was far less expensive than the Democrats plan. Remember that?
He did not promise to sign McCain Feingold. Prior to signing it, he even said he believed it to be unconstitutional...yet he signed it anyway, hoping that the courts would take care of it.
Didn't happen that way, obviously. Had to support CFR because it was the hot button of the 2000 election. It is easy to look up John McCain's comments. Specifically told RINO congress that if they passed it he would sign it. Even if it stunk up the constitution. What did the freakin Repub Congress do? And what did he do? Exactly what he said he would do. The fact that the Supreme Court is dumber than Congress is not George W. Bush's fault.
He also promised to appoint judges in the mold of Scalia and Thomas
As far as you know, or anyone else for that matter, he has. You might want to reexamine your medication.
That is absurd. Hamilton never said anything about qualified friends merely unqualified. Anyone who knows anything about Hamilton knows that his entire career was made possible because of his long relationship with General Washington.
Give her points for not blaming a "vast Right wing conspiracy".
You should go a little farther back in the history. Sunday a.m would probably work.
I give posters the respect they deserve.
I am and will remain a thorn in your side and your cohorts.
It is false that Bush has mounted any offensive based on sexism charges. But this is typical of those who have been jumping to conclusions about this nominee all along. A response to a loaded question has now become a Pattonesque attack under liberal banners. Ridiculous.
Thank you, Cboldt! That's what I've been telling him/her. Someone/many someones have been telling big fibs about Miers' qualifications.
Ms. Miers and G Bush have had an employer/employee relationship for at least 10+ years is also made clear by your post. This is obviously not the best way for the employer to get inside the employees' mind.
Certainly not a resume to bring to the HIGHEST court in the land for LIFE from her BOSS.
"Trust me" is not good enough anymore.
Oh, the Cult of Personality Lie sticks up its ugly head.
Lol now you're blowing up the malcontents to almost 50% of the voters? Try 5.
"Last paragraph of Federalist 76, do you really want to use this in your argument?
"To what purpose then require the co-operation of the Senate? I answer, that the necessity of their concurrence would have a powerful, though, in general, a silent operation. It would be an excellent check upon a spirit of favoritism in the President, and would tend greatly to prevent the appointment of unfit characters from State prejudice, from family connection, from personal attachment, or from a view to popularity. In addition to this, it would be an efficacious source of stability in the administration."
The answer is: Yes, I really would want to use Federalist 76, and the section you quote merely reinforces the point I was trying to make. It is the Senate who is to be the check, not the President's party advisors. In addition, as with any of the Framers explanations of the provisions of their Constitution, Federalist 76 must be taken as a whole, and in context, in order to be meaningful.
Let me reiterate my original point. The Founders' Constitution delegated the authority to the President, with a prescribed process for exercising that authority, which was to include the cooperation and concurrence of the Senate.
In the case now before us, the President has exercised his authority to name the nominee, and the process involves the Senate's hearings and vote (concurrence) in order for the nominee to become a justice.
Nowhere is there a constitutionally prescribed place in that process for citizens to "force" (or even influence) Presidential withdrawal of that nomination prior to Senate action. Federalist 76 explores reasons, as mentioned in my original post, for their reasoning that the authority is to rest with the Executive, with cooperation and concurrence of the Senate.
My further point was that, as citizens who hold to the principle that the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land and that we, as "conservatives," say we want justices who will abide by its prescriptions so that it may be "conserved," or preserved in all its integrity, then we should be willing to respect and abide by the process it prescribes and let the Senate handle the matter.
Many so-called "intellectuals" among the "talking heads" don't seem to be willing to do that, but would use their media status to try to force the President to withdraw the nomination, some on the grounds that he owes it to his political 'base.'
As individuals, we possess the right to criticize as much as we wish, but pressure from partisan groups to interject their will on a constitutional process is not seemly for those who claim devotion to the Constitution.
Now his shows are filled with silly irrelevencies without the brilliance he once showed. Can't expect such high level of performance forever now he is a member the Elite and hobnobs with the rich and powerful. If he wants to become a caricature that is his right.
Your opinion on a ruling cannot be disputed but I think it rather risky to make such positive conclusions based upon one case. Legal reasoning by individuals can have them taking positions not consistent with a particular ideological viewpoint. Occasionally Scalia and Thomas are different sides of a question but that does not make one less than an Originalist than the other.
It is ironic and provoking. I like good arguments.
Still auditioning Stand Up?
A heaper of incentive, moi? Hardly I cannot compete with your friends invective is all you have. Its your whole life.
Me, too, Texas! Anyone seeing the whole replay would have to realise the context of Matt's question. Laura was paying close attention, and knew Matt was referring to those of us who are extremely upset with her husband's nomination of a close friend and employee. We are the only ones who have reacted with, "What? You've got to be kidding me!"
These are the same words, 'sexism, elitism' that what's his name pulled on the conservatives he was meeting with last week, to cool them down! Laura is not being fair. And she is far too bright to not know precisely to whom Matt was refering. She could have responded properly.
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.