Posted on 10/20/2005 5:21:42 PM PDT by wagglebee
Snerdley looked it up. He found it. April 5th, 1992, this is during the campaign, Bill Clinton said, "And I will appoint judges to the Supreme Court who believe in the constitutional right to privacy, including the right to choose." So there Clinton did establish his litmus test. So it's okay for the libs to say, "We're going to get a pro-choice nominee. They're going to be pro-Roe vs. Wade," but somehow Republicans can't say this. Republican nominees say it. Republican presidents can't say it. "Weeeell, I have never talked to our nominee about that! You know, I don't have any litmus tests, oh, no, no, no! I wouldn't dare presume how our nominee is going to rule on such an issue." So here we have to hide what we're doing and have to, behave in a totally different way than the left gets to behave -- and not just on this, but other crucial issues. But it is a good point.
So what I'm referring to here is the Novak column today in which it is said that these hearings for Harriet Miers could feature "unspeakable ugliness," and what he's referring to is a conference call made to 12 or 13 religious leaders in America by two friends of Harriet Miers who assured these religion leaders in the conference call that she will vote to overturn Roe vs. Wade when it comes before her if she's confirmed. Now, fine examine dandy. I have no problem with that. But the White House has been out saying just the opposite. They don't even know what she thinks about it, and so it gives the appearance they've lost control of the process or are not telling the truth, which means the Democrats now are free, if they want to, to subpoena these two guys. One of them is the chief justice of the Texas Supreme Court, Nathan Hecht.
So if they get subpoenaed come before the committee. "What did you say to these religious, these Christians? What did you say to these Christians when you were talking to them about Harriet Miers?"
"I don't know."
Then they'll subpoena John Fund. Well, John Fund did the story. He's got the notes. This could quickly see this thing spiral out of control but it might be well worth it. Put this out on the table. Why hide this anymore? It's not something that needs to be behind. Why do you have to be embarrassed about being pro-life? Why do you have to be embarrassed about not wanting to kill babies in the womb? Why should that be an embarrassment? Why should that be something you have to hide? Why should that be something you have to tiptoe around?
"Well, Rush, what about the polls?"
The polls? We're going to put the polls over a matter of core principle such as life? You know, let the chips fall, but it's not something you have to hide.
Can we appoint Rush?
;-)
Yes, and Clinton is a psychopathic liar and a criminal too.
He is not qualified.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg Meinhof is qualified.
And so we have a Tyranny of the Judiciary, as I'm sure they also have in Europe.
"the GOP has a majority in the Senate." AND YOUR POINT IS ?
It's about damn time they took advantage of it!
That is basically what I thought two weeks ago, but now I'm beginning to wonder.
Are you sure we can just ram our agenda down the throats of the Democrats?
Personally, I think we need more stealth candidates. A divisive figure would only demonstrate how different we are from liberals. We all just need to get a long.
:) HA!
Man, I hope you are right.
Democrats are very consisten secular humanists, at least in terms of their political agenda. Republicans do not respond with an agenda capable of counteracting this because it takes a religious argument to do so, and they have all seen what happened to Tom DeLay.
So Democrats have a perfect record for putting principled leftists on the court, while Republicans can be counted on to put stealth leftists on the court because they don't have the strength of their convictions.
Having said that, I have high hopes for Harriet Meirs. A lot of people have voluntarily put themselves out on very long ropes which will hang them if Meirs turns out to be a liberal of pro-choice.
These are exactly the right questions. I think the thing about the Miers nomination that bothers me more than anything is the implicit acknowledgement it carries that nobody who is openly in favor of the things I personally favor could possibly get the job.
Are you volunteering?!
i agree with the stealth aspect... I don't think it is fair to criticize the Democrats for putting their agenda on the court (Ruth Buzzy Ginsberg) and then turn around and state that we want a religious person on the court.... it just don't jive with me
I'd *love* Janice Rogers Brown to be appointed but, truthfully, I don't believe this is a Red Herring in the least.
You mean that the 'Rats have a double standard? No! Say it ain't so!
Should be repeated!
PING
Unfortuntaely that's become the modus operandi of many influential Republicans.
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.