Conservatives Demand Nominee in Their Image (Supreme Court Being Declared a RINO-Free Zone)

Washington Times ^ | 10/28/2005 | Ralph Z. Hallow

[wally-balls]

Rule #1:

Don't say anything ridiculous

Rule #2:

Don't be offended when genuine conservatives challenge you

[Always Right]

Wait. Can't go there. Her whole life has been in a change until about the mid 90's. Dobson etal all knew this going in. They stated that she was firmly rooted....now.

I thought she was born again 15-20 years ago and supported a pro-life constitutional amendment in 1989. The lady is as firmly rooted as John Kerry on the issues.

[loveliberty2]

The pundits who stooped to the level of Far Left tactics in the past few weeks did not do honor to conservatism. Ends do not justify means, and their previous claims that the President's nominee "deserved" the right to a vote will come back to haunt them.

However, the Republican Senators are now placed in a position of deciding whether they will defend the principles of the Founders' Constitution and back a strong conservative nominee, or whether they will be cowered by the threats of Durbin, Reid, et al.

The Far Left adheres to the "living constitution" school, meaning that, as one liberal university professor proudly boasted a few years ago, "what we have had is a 'sitting constitutional convention.'"

There is no middle ground between liberty and tyranny, and that is what this is about.

Of the Constitution, James Madison observed that, ". . . every word. . . decides a question between power and liberty. . . ."

If future generations are to enjoy the liberty previous generations considered their birthright, and for which so many have sacrificed their lives, then now is the time for naming Supreme Court justices who will limit the Court to interpreting the Constitution. If changes are to be made, the Constitution has prescribed the only legitimate method by which they may be made--by act of "the People" themselves through the Amendment Process.

[Triple]

I'm a supporter of conservative ideals, people have to earn my support with actions. Nobody gets a free pass.

[ComputerGuy]

Sorry ma'am. I didn't know you were in charge.

[Brilliant]

I don't think that another Roberts is going to cut it this time. Bush is going to have to appoint a certifiably conservative justice. With Roberts, the "trust me" argument worked. After Miers, it won't.

[rollo tomasi]

Did the Pres. appoint "whomever he sees fit"?

I seem to remember Democrats demanding Bush pick someone from their "list" (And Miers was on the democrat approved "list").

I question whether Bush acted independently because Reid had a huge smile of relief when Miers was first announced.

[Romish_Papist]

"To further that commitment, I am unable to support a person such as myself as nominee to the Supreme Court."

[Ben Ficklin]

Harriet Miers is further proof that the republican party cannot form a governing coalition. They are hopelessly split.

[JCEccles]

But loyalty begets loyalty

Bush breached it and now has a chance to repair it.

[Ben Ficklin]

It is gratifying to see you admit that it wasn't all about Harriet. It was payback for Roberts.

[Romish_Papist]

Diane Sykes. That's my bet. A good pick too, as far as I'm concerned.

[wally-balls]

"Sorry ma'am. I didn't know you were in charge."

You learn something new everyday

[S.O.L.]

This says it all.

"We want Bush to fulfill his campaign commitment to give us a nominee like Antonin Scalia or Clarence Thomas. Conservatives have this old-fashioned notion that candidates should fulfill the promises they made once they get elected."

No more stealth candidates.

[ZULU]

"Yes, let's leave the "blowing" to Mr. Sulu."

I think it was Leonard Nemoy's ears which got him off.

Me, I always liked Lt. Ahura.

[rob777]

"Conservatives have this old-fashioned notion that candidates should fulfill the promises they made once they get elected."






That about sums it up.

[nonliberal]

the conservatives said they didn't trust Bush, but they didn't really trust the process or their elected representatives to work for them.

Nope. We just didn't trust Bush.

[nonliberal]

Would President Bush select one of them or select a 0.180 hitting infielder who coached his daughters in T-ball?

Well, he DID trade Sammy Sosa to acquire Harold Baines.

[Texas Federalist]

The sad part to me is that the process has been circumvented. We elected representatives. The President has the right to appoint whomever he sees fit.

Are you seriously trying to make the argument that the democratic process is circumvented when people voice opposition to a government policy or decision? Bush voluntarily withdrew the nomination in response to criticism. The people merely persuaded Bush to make another nomination.

[sinkspur]

Sure they will, but their days of influence in the White House are over.

That's ridiculous. Bush is not going to abandon Dobson over this.

Your analysis is pure fantasy.