Posted on 10/27/2005 5:54:48 AM PDT by SoFloFreeper
There the "leadership principle" demands that everyone's moral judgements fall in line with the "leider's" opinions.
We are forced to stand by helpless to prevent the slaughter of the innocent, and if that's not a fascist system, then nothing is.
It is time to overthrow the rule of the Supreme Court justices and their running dog lackeys~
Looks like it is true and Andy Card too. Both Miers and Card got on the plane and left to spend the weekend with the President. You probably already heard.
I've been wondering how long it would take for Ms. Mier's detractors to figure out that if she wasn't to be trusted on the SCOTUS she sure shouldn't be the main gatekeeper for those who would be getting the nomination to sit on the Court. Sounds like it's dawning on folks.
No, I had not heard. I have been offline for a while and sort of out of touch. Not great news, huh?
"Team [ Laura ] Bush started sliming conservatives of being bigoted against women"
OK so GW went out and publicly disputed his wife? Maybe he did. I admit not to track his every move.
I agree it was a good selling point, but having had some time to reflect on what happened and on some of the comments from Senators, I have come to the conclusion that Roberts did such a great job in hearings that they used him as the bench mark. They saw Miers as falling too far below that mark and were afraid to put her up. Had Roberts come second and after Miers, it would have been entirely different. She would have got the hearing I think.
I think this affected the argument, and screwed the pooch for her.....so to speak. Personally, I was not holding her to a Roberts standard. I was trying to be fair minded.
There likely is not a second Roberts in the offing. In fact, I'm not so damned sure about the first one.
Miers deserved that hearing, rise, fall or blow it, no amount of time or talk will ever convince me otherwise. It is unfortunate, but the rhetoric before and after has really hurt the coalition and will result in future damages. It has revealed a serious disagreement over the president and the agenda. This won't go away.......IMO (not this time)
Politically, their are three roads a politician can take. The left fork, the center and the right fork.
Candidates usually can take any one of the three and win big by appealing to one of the others while running in the center. This adds distance between the center and the right flank and makes appealing to both much more difficult for a politician. (the Dem's have had the same problem, and now we have it)
It will complicate things in 06, and I think, open the third party door wide, by 08. On both sides! Causing a minority elected president once again.
Because of the party defections and the recent behavior, I think the unity will suffer more on our side and we will lose.
Based on that snapshot, the candidate will likely be a centrist, and not a conservative. A candidate that is much further left of even Bush.
This is the opposite reaction that the conservatives were trying to create and they will be quite disappointed. Some will stay home, and others will scatter to third parties or party, in the final vote, causing a loss.
That's my prediction, and time will tell the story if I am right, but it really is just a matter of history repeating and it did not have to be that way. Not at all.
You are right that one decision reflects on someone's judgment regarding other decisions. I haven't dropped the ball on this. Been digging. The NEA is cleaned up quite a bit on the surface. But looking deeper, it's still very troubling. FRegards....
Because of the party defections and the recent behavior, I think the unity will suffer more on our side and we will lose."
Funny they brought up the 'glass ceiling'. Conservatism just broke through a glass ceiling.
I might add, that the sex issue should now be off the table. the next pick, I believe will be a male.
It did not have to be this way, but now it is.
Nope. The gender issue is NOT off the table. Conservatives were accused of being 'anti-woman'. Picking a man would be Smack Number Two at conservatives.
All the more reason we should keep pushing for Janice Rogers Brown, since this process has been tainted. Not only a great mind, but a woman, and a minority to boot.
I hate to bring factors like that up when talking about the Supreme Court [I pulled for Brown prior to this fiasco actually], but we need to put on some armor at this point to shield ourselves from Bush as well as the left.
"I really think that Bush thought he was doing the right thing in Miers."
I disagree. If you are confident in your choice, you don't bypass proper vetting with something this important. When a president bypasses proper vetting, particularly with someone perceived being the president's friend, watch out.
"I don't mean to be sexist or in any way misogynistic, but we don't know what Bush thought of the others and who had withdrawn from consideration prior to the pick. We just don't."
His top choices weren't the conservative top choices. So that is another bad sign.
"I think it was the desire to pick a woman that caused the Miers choice. I think that was the mistake. Not the pick."
Ha! There are many outstanding conservative females who would greatly improve this court. I don't hesitate to bash some women when they sound nuts. I slammed Peggy Noonan one time. I slammed Madam Not-So-Bright and the Wookie [Reno] constantly. I think the lipstick petition of female marines was completely insane. But when I see brilliance, it's not always male. Most notably: Ann Coulter.
Best bet is to call it as you see it. My advice is, look at what people say and do, and try to leave gender out of it.
I hope you don't feel too smacked.......:-)
BTTT
Thanks, but why the BTTT on such old news? :)
About time.
LOL!
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.