Skip to comments.
Senator Clinton Urges President To Select Next Supreme Court Nominee By Consensus
NY 1 ^
| October 27, 2005
| NY 1 News
Posted on 10/28/2005 7:00:23 AM PDT by LurkedLongEnough
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100 ... 121-126 next last
To: LurkedLongEnough
"Consensus" nominee, huh? I cannot believe the arrogance of that woman! When her husband was President, he named who he thought best reflected his beliefs and his party's philosophy. He didn't go looking around for a consensus candidate. This is another example of Democrats trying to get the President to give them what they can't win at the ballot box.
("Denny Crane: Gun Control? For Communists. She's a liberal. Can't hunt.")
61
posted on
10/28/2005 7:30:49 AM PDT
by
goldstategop
(In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
To: LurkedLongEnough
Yeah, like Breyer and Ginsberg were consensual candidates.
62
posted on
10/28/2005 7:32:02 AM PDT
by
RobbyS
( CHIRHO)
To: lawdude
Does anyone think she would get a single repubbie vote? Of course she would. She would still be confirmed with 90 or better, votes. Have you not been been watching these spineless sinators?
63
posted on
10/28/2005 7:32:11 AM PDT
by
Just A Nobody
(I - LOVE - my attitude problem !)
To: el_texicano
Good idea from Hillary for a change. Janice is leading in the
consensus department.
64
posted on
10/28/2005 7:32:22 AM PDT
by
duckln
To: citizensgratitude
Dear Hilderbeast
Bush won, you and yours lost, BITE ME!!!!!
Now President Bush and the majority party (the right wing) can do what ever they please.
To: Justanobody
I agree with you, but it is all about playing chess. The best way to play in this case is to enrage the dems from the get go. Make them actually think they are going to have influence, then BAM!!! Pull the rug out from under them and nominate a conservative anyway. It will absolutely unbalance them and throw sympathy on the nominee.
This battle is about more than the nominee. Its about showing the American People, time after time, who the dems really are, and what they really stand for.
As a matter of fact, that should be the goal of any agenda the President puts forward. To make the dems take a stand (by filibustering, by casting outrageous votes) based upon their true beliefs.
To: Justanobody
67
posted on
10/28/2005 7:36:17 AM PDT
by
citizensgratitude
(Our Military, present & past, the Highest example of Brotherhood of Man and doing God's Will)
To: LurkedLongEnough
Just another example of how shameless this witch is. Uh, like her wife did with Ruth Bader Ginsburg.......yeah, that was consensus.
68
posted on
10/28/2005 7:37:12 AM PDT
by
Dawgreg
(Happiness is not having what you want, but wanting what you have.)
To: Justanobody
"Have you not been been watching these spineless sinators?"
Sorry, I had momentary visions of -R Senators with 'nads.
69
posted on
10/28/2005 7:37:49 AM PDT
by
lawdude
(Err Amerika induces "in-talk-sication".)
To: LurkedLongEnough
We have a consensus, Hitlery. You are guilty of treason and murder. Your pantsuite for your next birthday will be orange.
70
posted on
10/28/2005 7:38:16 AM PDT
by
Redleg Duke
(9/11 - "WE WILL NEVER FORGET!")
To: HarleyLady27
Ouch! That is a visual I could do without.
To: LurkedLongEnough
Hillary! 2008 is such a moron. New York should be ashamed of itself.
72
posted on
10/28/2005 7:39:19 AM PDT
by
gridlock
(Nature started the fight for survival, and now she wants to quit because she's losing... Monty Burns)
To: LurkedLongEnough
Clinton:43% of the vote.....Ginsburg and Breyer
Bush:51% of the vote...Roberts and whoever he damn well pleases.
To: gridlock
Hillary! 2008 is such a moron. New York should be ashamed of itself. Being a New Yorker means never having to say you're sorry.
To: MJY1288
75
posted on
10/28/2005 7:44:43 AM PDT
by
BenLurkin
(O beautiful for patriot dream - that sees beyond the years)
To: LurkedLongEnough
She's right about consensus! However the "consensus" should be among CONSERVATIVES, not the Senate and we have an approved list.
HRC does not want to serve, she wants to rule.
76
posted on
10/28/2005 7:46:38 AM PDT
by
mom.mom
("Liberals fought poverty and poverty won." Ronald Reagan)
To: LurkedLongEnough
Yeah. Like she ever sought a consensus when she told Bill who to nominate.
77
posted on
10/28/2005 7:46:39 AM PDT
by
Ghengis
(Alexander was a wuss!)
To: FlipWilson
I understand chess and MOOSEMUSS.
The best way to play in this case is to enrage the dems from the get go.
The fact that PRESIDENT Bush breathes, enrages them, and he has been playing on it for nearly 5 years.
78
posted on
10/28/2005 7:47:10 AM PDT
by
Just A Nobody
(I - LOVE - my attitude problem !)
To: gridlock
gridlock, NJ has its skeletons too.....
79
posted on
10/28/2005 7:47:30 AM PDT
by
citizensgratitude
(Our Military, present & past, the Highest example of Brotherhood of Man and doing God's Will)
To: LurkedLongEnough; Alice au Wonderland
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100 ... 121-126 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson