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.
She's choosing battles she can win. But a focus on the crappy comments here just adds to the din.
It was on threads on free republic, I do not understand why I have to tell you this stuff. All you have to do is scroll a few threads in the last week on Harriet Miers and you will see real sicko's make those comments and worse. Not only are they making these horrid remarks, but they keep posting and reposting the same lies and accusations that have been debunked time and again. Some may have an excuse like being drunk, but most do not.
I can satisfy the Father part, as long as she puts up some street cred on the filibusters.
As much or more, sans first "more."
Typo.
It is too bad there are not more broken glass conservatives with the spirit of patriotism.
What was done to Clarence Thomas so bothered me, I took a day off from work to attend his confirmation hearings and to visit not only the offices of the Senators in my state, but the offices of Senators in other states to urge them to confirm him.
My opinion regarding this article has nothing to do with what I WANT to believe. It is perfectly plausible given the difficulty of the process, that some candidates may have withdrawn. But it doesn't pass the smell test. Why include Priscilla Owens name in earlier articles and fail to include a single additional name in this one?
I worked with political types for years and KNOW their tricks. Too often when they've made a poor decision or something bad happens on their watch, instead of admitting their error they make excuses, blame it on a little guy within their employ or lie, even when the problem can be easily corrected.
What will convince me is an article with the specific names of the 80% who withdrew. It's that simple.
You're very wrong there. Ingraham has never become President, like Bush has.
Even if that statement were made coherently, it wouldn't make anymore sense. I believe you are trying to say Bush has accomplished nothing. How large is the rock you live under?
So I believe the score is 1-0, in her favor.
It has already been hashed and rehashed, He cannot make a recess appt until there is a vacancy. Until she resigns, there is no vacancy and The new Court year has already begun, there is no way that Bush and O'connor will let the court be short until there is a new Justice confirmed. She may have been awful on some matters, but at least she is not Ginsberg.
well im outta here for the night have a good one, keep up the good fight lol
I was asserting that Bush has accomplished nothing, with regard to reshaping the Supreme Court in a conservative, originalist mold.
It was in response to another user's comment, who had contradicted my previous assertion.
Thus far, no one's stepped forward with any compelling evidence proving otherwise.
Do you also believe in the tooth fairy?
Ingraham squandered an opportunity to devote all of her energies toward defeating the filibuster, before Bush's 2nd SCOTUS nomination occurred.
me too Stellar - goodnight to you, look forward to some pings tomorrow ;)
She may not be RBG herself, but there's no guarantee that she won't vote like her and adopt her half-baked, pseudo-Constitutional theories.
I don't think it's so clear and simple as you are making it. If there is no vacancy, how do you justify the nomination? The confirmation process?
So the president sets those wheels in motion, but the Senate refuses to vote for an extended period. Maybe the keys are in O'Connor's hand (change her letter to "I quit NOW"), maybe they are in the Presindet's hands ("Here is your replacement, have a nice retirement.").
It's a risky political move - but so was the Declaration of Independence.
How many decisions have Supreme Court Justices appointed by Bush made? Did somebody say zero? I thought so. Since the most "compelling evidence" would be actual results, I think you are engaged in a little premature wrist slashing.
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.