Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

80% of Potential SCOTUS Nominees on W's List Decline His Offer
Fox News | 10-11-05 | freedom4me

Posted on 10/11/2005 9:08:44 PM PDT by freedom4me

During the 11:00 p.m. (CST) newsbreak, Donna Fuducia reported that Karl Rove told James Dobson that 80% of the potential SCOTUS nominees on the President's list declined his offer because of they didn't want to undergo the grueling confirmation process. Perhaps this sheds new light on the reason why W chose Miers.


TOPICS: Government; Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: bush43; judicialnominees; miers; nothanks; rove; scotus
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 581-600601-620621-640 ... 761-770 next last
To: wardaddy
I like Laura, too. Very much so. But I am sorry to say that she played the sexist card. Soothly. Sweetly. Without any bobbles. Very well planned.
601 posted on 10/11/2005 11:55:57 PM PDT by Iwo Jima
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 592 | View Replies]

To: samantha
You are slipping. Why did you want a recess appt to sit on O'connors's lap?

Hmmm. Well, in balance of powers, when the president appoints, the judge ... I dunno waht O'Connor would do. But she should step aside despite the literal language of her retirement letter.

While I think a recess appoint is mostly theoretical, I think it is not entirely theoretical. It's a Constitutional power of the President, as impeachment is for Congress. Not often used, but awesome in power. Tends to keep the others guys performing their Constitutional functions, if you know what I mean.

Our politicians don't know how to use the COnstitution. They are mired in legislation and regulations and minutia and winning elections (buying votes with cash).

COnservatives have to change that, you know, if we are to get the country straightened out. We can joke about it, but this is ernestly serious stuff.

602 posted on 10/11/2005 11:56:21 PM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 593 | View Replies]

To: wardaddy
"I would never watch Lauer."

Neither do I. As a matter of fact, my remote is broken. I don't get up to change the channel to listen to any leftist.

603 posted on 10/11/2005 11:57:42 PM PDT by sageb1 (This is the Final Crusade. There are only 2 sides. Pick one.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 597 | View Replies]

To: samantha

If Harriet were Harry, she might've merited a district court appointment.


604 posted on 10/11/2005 11:58:11 PM PDT by Steve_Stifler ((apparently an elitist snob))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 588 | View Replies]

To: Iwo Jima

That's why I asked....if she was on Lauer for Meirs then she knew what she was doing....she is not dumb.


on occasion the past 5 years I have seen icky PC drifts from this White House a number of times....

of course with Clinton it rained PC

but why must we have to be satisifed always by weighing the alternative?

is a real conservative impossible?

we shall see


605 posted on 10/11/2005 11:59:06 PM PDT by wardaddy (Save a cow......eat a vegetarian.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 601 | View Replies]

To: sageb1

From Freepers.


606 posted on 10/11/2005 11:59:08 PM PDT by hobson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 598 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt
I'd say the GOP has let down its end of the load.

I hate excuses, such as this line about nobody but Miers wanting the job. How many conservatives did all they could to trounce the filibuster when it was first concocted by Kennedy, Clinton, Schumer et. al?

Conservatives MUST lead out front on the filibuster in order to gain credibility on the nominations. Otherwise, I see more excuses in our future.

607 posted on 10/11/2005 11:59:23 PM PDT by Kryptonite
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 590 | View Replies]

To: hobson

Sad.


608 posted on 10/12/2005 12:00:10 AM PDT by sageb1 (This is the Final Crusade. There are only 2 sides. Pick one.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 606 | View Replies]

To: sageb1; samantha
Me either - samantha - where exactly are you hearing this stuff? Not on any thread I've been in, and I've freeped way more than I should have lately (anybody else have to switch screens quickly when their loved ones come over to ask, "are you still freeping??!! - No, no of course not..., I was just um...checking tomorrow's forecast!" :)
609 posted on 10/12/2005 12:00:11 AM PDT by nerdgirl (just say NO to posters who are "stuck on mean")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 598 | View Replies]

To: TAdams8591

I do not think so. Nothing will convince you because you do not want to shift out of neutral. You honestly do not think that these women do not want an anal exam from the Democrats after the crap that has been spewed in the media on Miers in just the last week, and all the crap on these threads from the so called allies. You have to be joking. They accused John Roberts little boy Jack of being gay, they do not care if it is true just put it out there and see if it sticks. I would not put up with the crap two minutes and you know what Janice Brown said to Rush and the way she said it told all of us that she was through for now. You did not have to go through the crap, and all those potential nominees saw what they put Robert's *the shoe in) through and they said forget it. Miers is he only one with the guts to handle those dirty Bass-turds.


610 posted on 10/12/2005 12:01:15 AM PDT by samantha (cheer up, the adults are in charge! Soldier in Bucket Brigade Reporting for Duty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 538 | View Replies]

To: TheCrusader

What? Every politician has to go through this process, and all of those presently sitting on the Supreme Court had the courage to face potential slander and dredging up of past events. But after all the partisan character assassinations and gossipping is done by the Senators, they are the ones who look bad before before the American people, not the SCOTUS nominee.

Beyond all that, consider what our brave soldiers and marines are going through to serve our country right now. It takes guts to stand up and do something for America that requires a possible sacrifice. Our troops are facing real bullets and real bombs, not some cheap verbal shots from washed-up windbags like Teddy Kennedy and Patrick Leahey.

It's simply not true that all of the sitting justices went through the character assassination that now prevails. The MSM gives a pass to Rat nominees, and the level of slime that occurs now was nowhere near the same level before the Thomas confirmation. In Thomas, the wackos went nuclear to try to keep off the court a black conservative who shattered all of the lies the MSM and the left had been feeding the American people for decades.

Is everyone done ranting about how these judicial nominees should be prepared to wade ashore at Omaha Beach, go over the top at the Somme, etc.? If not, then keep going until you get it out of your system.

The reality is that the current character assassination gauntlet IS in fact keeping people who are outstanding originalist, constitutional legal scholars and who would make excellent Supreme Court Justices from the point of view of FReepers, from being included as potential nominees.

Let's focus on the real enemies, it's not the nancy boy legal scholars, but the vicious left-wing smear machine.

611 posted on 10/12/2005 12:01:21 AM PDT by SirJohnBarleycorn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 567 | View Replies]

To: wardaddy
Laura and George were in Louisian helping put together a habitiat home. One qhestion put to GWB was on the Fed rebuilding plan, and he said there is none, thatthe Feds don't tell the locals how to rebuild their place - they get to make their own plans to suit their own desires, etc. Darn good answer. Then he was asked about the conservative backlash, and he gave praise to Miers (didn't answer the question, undertandably). Lauer's gotcah introduced sexism "Laura, some people argue choosing a woman was sexist ..." She said, "It's possible" INstead of "Oh no, no more than if ..."

ANyway. Event blown pretty far out of proportion, IMO. And I stress the IMO. Gillespies "elites" offense is pure crap.

612 posted on 10/12/2005 12:01:26 AM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 597 | View Replies]

To: sageb1

Yes, it is. Sickening.


613 posted on 10/12/2005 12:01:45 AM PDT by hobson (It's a bit like getting nibbled to death by a duck...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 608 | View Replies]

To: Kryptonite
Conservatives MUST lead out front on the filibuster in order to gain credibility on the nominations. Otherwise, I see more excuses in our future.

If the GOP drops this ball, the GOP will lose elections. It's the GOP's problem to handle, and it is emphatically not cutting the mustard.

614 posted on 10/12/2005 12:02:55 AM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 607 | View Replies]

To: hobson

I never saw all of that....some of the homo stuff...which would surface were the nominee a 60 year old never married male too

but....often the FReepers harshest on other women here are

...women freepers

just look how they slice and dice Coulter and Malkin now that they are on the FReeper Female Posse's shitelist

*not all prolific freeper women do this (see, I'm skeered of them too..lol)


615 posted on 10/12/2005 12:02:59 AM PDT by wardaddy (Save a cow......eat a vegetarian.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 606 | View Replies]

To: Black Tooth
I agree it doesn't make sense. Including the names would certainly add credibility to the story.

I was thinking since none of the candidates know which particular candidates withdrew their names and which didn't, the ones who didn't think the whitehouse was referring to someone else. None of them has the means or the opportunity to question all the other candidates to learn the truth and each one is blind about the actions of the other.

The above is the best I can explain it, this time of night, LOL!

Do we even know all of the potential nominees on the President's list? Or is only the Whitehouse privy to each and every name on their list?

616 posted on 10/12/2005 12:04:07 AM PDT by TAdams8591 (A Reagan Conservative and mighty proud of it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 580 | View Replies]

To: nerdgirl

Samantha is correct. I have read those things too. If I have time tomorrow I'll find them and send you a link.


617 posted on 10/12/2005 12:04:18 AM PDT by hobson (It's a bit like getting nibbled to death by a duck...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 609 | View Replies]

To: wardaddy


You better be.


618 posted on 10/12/2005 12:04:23 AM PDT by onyx ((Vicksburg, MS) North is a direction. South is a way of life.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 615 | View Replies]

To: wardaddy
I've seen the cut several times. Laura was not caught off guard. She was given her cue and then delivered her lines. Very well, I would say.

A real conservative is possible, IMO, but I am not bright enough to say exactly how.

I just know in my heart that it can be done because most of this country (at least the south & west) is conservative.
619 posted on 10/12/2005 12:04:55 AM PDT by Iwo Jima
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 605 | View Replies]

To: wardaddy
I've seen the cut several times. Laura was not caught off guard. She was given her cue and then delivered her lines. Very well, I would say.

A real conservative is possible, IMO, but I am not bright enough to say exactly how.

I just know in my heart that it can be done because most of this country (at least the south & west) is conservative.
620 posted on 10/12/2005 12:04:56 AM PDT by Iwo Jima
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 605 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 581-600601-620621-640 ... 761-770 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