Posted on 10/14/2005 12:38:54 PM PDT by Theodore R.
Reid has not said he would vote for her. Any comment he has made merely says she is a nice person or something equally bland.
Uh you being totally fake and trying to divert a thread, from the subject.
Bush had the power to nominate anyone he wished to. That is the way the Constitution reads. He could have nominated Putin as far as that goes.
But you have not been disappointed in regards to judicial appointments. Everything else is irrelevant to this issue. Bush has consistently appointed those who have a philosophy of judicial restraint. There is no reason to believe that he would change that when it comes to high court picks.
Yes, I would have loved to have seen a knock-down dragout fight with the Dems to get the debate going again on judicial restraint. Ask everyone else here supportive of Miers. They will say the same thing. But, you must realize a couple of things.
First, Bush has never been much of a partisan warrior. That's just not what he does. Think about it. He may play rope-a-dope with the opposition sometimes (and maybe he's doing the same with this pick), but he doesn't start fights for the sake of starting fights. If he did, the Dems in Washington would be a party practically neutered, even more so than they are now.
Secondly, if he did nominate Owen or someone like her, the Dems would fight and filibuster, only this time we'd be powerless to stop them. A couple of weeks ago, half of the Democrats voted to confirm Roberts. If an Owen were appointed, they would claim that they were reasonable with Roberts, but this pick was "out of the mainstream". If our guys tried to go nuclear, they would be painted as being the "mean" ones, and just enough RINOs might switch to beat the rules change.
You have every right to, you are pissed that someone actually responds to you logically, not buchanically.
Schafly is no hero in any sense. She couldn't get elected to even minor offices and wisely hasn't tried. She is a moderately interesting character who sometimes has good points to make. This article is not one of them.
We'll see. As I said, she was on his list of candidates of whom he approves.
Roe must be overturned very carefully. A heavy handed approach will do much damage. Women who normally don't care that much about the issue will, all of a sudden and vote accordingly. Remember, the having something taken away is 5 times more powerful than not getting something. Why do you think women will fight to the death over an 'ugly' piece of clothing that they just passed passed by, just because another women went to grab for it??
Only those deliberately seeking to obscure the differences in these nominations and that of Miers OR those who know nothing of the actual facts would believe that is a good point.
Has Schafly morphed into Cindy Sheehan?
What's next? Is Phyllis going to camp out in front of the White House until Bush answers her questions?
Who is Phyllis Schlafly ?
Not the way the Constitution was originally written. The People were to be kept as far away from judicial nominees as possible.
Phyllis Schlafly is perhaps the first member ever of what has been called the "conservative movement." She last Republican races for Congress in 1952 and 1970, running in liberal IL. She was once called "the sweetheart" of the movement.
Try http://www.hughhewitt.com/ if you really want an answer to these questions.
www.google.com is your friend.
"Details, details can't let details get in the way of high dudgeon. Phylis is just upset because she wasn't consulted."
I have to say, I have never like Phyliss' tone, particularly when Aids was growing exponentially.
Conservatives, particularly fiscal conservatives who value individual rights, (like me), have a right to feel some frustration and its gonna come out at times.
But I don't think beating up the President over Miers before we've heard her speak is a useful vent for that frustration.
The subject is whether Bush can be trusted to appoint a strong constitutionalist. Bush's past appointments to the Texas supreme court were two out of three liberal and on a host of other matters, particularly recent matters, Bush has sounded and behaved liberally. I resent WHATEVER you might mean by "fake."
As I said before....
It seems too many here have put their faith in GWB. And on many issues, he has let us down (immigration, limited federal government, to name two). Many believed that at least he would give us something back with the SCOTUS nominees.
Well, grow up. Bush gets to select nominees not us. We elected him so we live with his decisions, right or wrong. Is there something illegal about his pick? If so, withdraw the nominee. If not, leave it alone.
We picked the best of the two candidates (Bush v. Gore, Bush v. Kerry). In my opinion, we need MUCH better candidates.
Maybe just maybe, Bush isn't as conservative as some of you may like?
The Lord has told us not to put our trust in man. You will be disappointed.
They don't want an Originalist but THEIR variety of originalist. Not that most even know what an originalist is.
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.