I await your response, if you are so moved, in the same spirit.
Posted on 10/18/2005 9:43:27 PM PDT by Stellar Dendrite
Indeed. I'm in the same camp as you. The GOP gave us Bush against Kerry......some choice. Conservatives were burnt by the first Bush and you'd think we would learn that apples usually don't fall far from their tree's. The GOP is and has been the Gestation of "Progressiveness" instead of the "Grand Old Party" for quite awhile. Reagan being the notable exception.
lol
I guess those were the skills that so many Justices have used to convince us that the Constitution doesn't really mean what we think it says or that "shall not" actually means "except when".
I knew that little bugger was in there somewhere that the Supreme Court Justices wouldn't let Congress just take my paycheck and give part of it to the 65 year old millionaire next door or buy his wife's mammograms.
Bork happens to own the mind that was once considered one of the most brilliant legal minds of the day. The WSJ thought enough of his opinion to publish it. Not a subscriber, I have not had the opportunity to read it, but I would be willing to bet the President read it. And I would be willing to bet the President had some respect for it, even if he profoundly disagreed with it. A lot of the carping Freepers on this thread have stated their opinions and snide remarks, but they seem to begrudge the Judge for stating his.
Sure it is. But it's not the job itself that makes you a very good lawyer. It's that nobody gets there who isn't. You have to be both a very good lawyer and have demonstrated administrative skills. Otherwise, your partners won't elect you to that position.
That's not correct. I'll give you that it is generally the case that managing partners of are of superior legal ability to most of their fellow partners, however, some subpar lawyers are chosen because of their superior administrative skills, notoriety in the community, political connections, or willingness to do the job.
I would also somewhat strongly disagree with you that Bork is borking Miers. Chief Justice Marshall was a very accomplished man before he was appointed to the bench, more so than even Chief Justice Roberts. Bork's comments have been strictly limited to the lack of any evidence of originialist views on the Constitution. You cannot read Bork's article and think that he has in any way argued against her like what happened to him, where he was slandered and denounced personally as well as philosophically. Keep in mind, also, that at the time of Bork's nomination, there were approximately 100 opinions of his that had been appealed to the Supreme Court, and (if memory serves) not one of those had been overturned.
You can disagree with Bork's opinion, but not his own qualifications to criticize.
[[I forgot to add: your point really isn't about hypocrisy is it? You want those of us not on your side to ignore what Bork has to say, so you use poor logic to try and railroad us off the issue. Just like a liberal would.
RINO.]]
If that is your best retort, and you choose to engage in puerile name-calling, I could refer to you as an intellectually challenged programmed drone.
[[LOL I'd like to see what happens to the GOP when the right fringe doesn't show up the next time.
Ask Bush41 what it's like. And get a sneak preview in the '06 mid term elections.]]
More entrenched ideological ranting from the far right. Whine, whine, I am going to take my bat and ball and go home. You aren't a conservative, you are a selfish, childish, spoiled brat who would cut off his nose to spite his face.
Good post, and very well written. I don't agree with most of it, but so what? If I have time, and am in the mood, I will give it the response it deserves. Thanks.
Until now, the supposed Conservative litmus test, has been that ines if ours should be anti-abortion. Nobody ever said that the nominee had to be some Ivory Tower Constitutionalist fire-breather. As a matter of fact, it was never a Conservative's wish that our justices rule/make laws from the bench. That was what we all found so horrible about Liberal judges and SCOTUS justices.
Well, you can take this for what's it worth.
Several years ago on television I heard Bork speak about the second, though reluctantly, and what I heard nearly made me soil my trousers.
I could not believe I had held him up as an icon for what justices ought to be like.
Yeah, it was pretty good. Not that I agree with everything he wrote but he wrote it well. Stevens writes well also.
Frank, you have FR mail from me, because your post pisses me off. You really don't get it. I have taken pills for my sprained wrist and would appreciate debating you tomorrow.
He's comitted no war crimes and hence, he's not worried about any future indictments. You;re delusional.
Bush is NOT trying to get even with anyone. He's trying to put a woman on the court who he knows won;'t go left 5, 10, 20 years from, now, like Sandra O'Connor did once RWR lost his faculties.
You have parroted Ariana Coulter's line -- that Bush is sticking it to the conservatives... the definition of conservatives is an ever changing one depending on the hot button issies.
Now, it's your turn.
You think he was never "with us" --- I strongly disagree.
I await your response, if you are so moved, in the same spirit.
Try it sometime, you'll like it.
Given that it's in his "Slouching" book, it's more than fair game.
Could you give us a hint and then just semi-kill us?
Sincerely, A Youth in Asia.
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.