Skip to comments.
Bush: Judge Samuel Alito is new choice for Supreme Court nominee
Fox News ^
Posted on 10/31/2005 3:12:28 AM PST by kcvl
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,021-1,040, 1,041-1,060, 1,061-1,080 ... 1,901-1,920 next last
To: righttackle44
100% Correct! The more democrats that start sounding like reid, the better for the chances of adding a few REAL conservatives to the Senate next year. And maybe even replacing some of the RINOs with real Republicans. Not the gutless RINO 7, though Lindsey Grahm sure seems pretty conservative. Is he really a RINO? If so, he sure talks a good game. 8)
1,041
posted on
10/31/2005 6:27:43 AM PST
by
Allen H
(Remember 9-11,God bless our military,Bush,& the USA! A sad ACLU, for a better America!!!)
To: Bird Jenkins
'gang of 14' IMO should be 'gang of 7'.
The McCain and Linsey gang is 7 strong and independent, and have their own leaders, McCain and Linsey. They have accomplished a coup by permitting the 'filibuster'. The 7 on the Democrat side are 'surrogates' and the are not a gang. In that their leader is their caucus. Referring to a gang of 14 dilutes the complicity of the 7.
It's a slick senate Democrat trick to provide cover for acting president McCain and vice president Linsey.
1,042
posted on
10/31/2005 6:28:15 AM PST
by
duckln
(Down with the Leaders of the Gang of 7, McCain and Linsey)
To: OXENinFLA
1,043
posted on
10/31/2005 6:28:34 AM PST
by
Mo1
To: All
1,044
posted on
10/31/2005 6:28:49 AM PST
by
blazneyez
(Sometimes I feel diagonally parked in a parallel universe...)
To: Rodney King
So you concede that Miers met all the requirements set by the Constitution?
1,045
posted on
10/31/2005 6:28:56 AM PST
by
AFPhys
((.Praying for President Bush, our troops, their families, and all my American neighbors..))
To: Cboldt
I did not subscribe to the argument that a strong conservative could not be confirmed. I am always waiting and hoping for the Rs in congress to act like strong advocates for conservatism.
I think today is no longer the time to rehash the merits of the Miers nomination. So I will refrain from making any other points. Please allow me to just add that I was not referring to you, in particular, when I commented about the lack of hue and cry about "legislating from the bench." I was referring to the weeks of anti-Miers punditry.
1,046
posted on
10/31/2005 6:29:17 AM PST
by
maica
(We are fighting the War for the Free World --Frank Gaffney)
To: Carry_Okie
Now we will see if George Bush has the balls to do what we elected him to do.
Bush has done his part already. Now it's up to the Senate.
To: LS
Sounds like Bush hit a home run with this one after an infield fly with Miers.An excellent analogy. And with the Infield Fly Rule in effect, Miers was out while the ball was still in the air.
To: advance_copy
Laura Ingraham calls this nomination "fantastic on every level." Another good sign. I believe ALL of the "out of favor" pundits will strongly support this nomination. IT'll be interesting if that returns them to "in favor" status, or further entrenches the people who were emotionally invested in the Miers nomination.
To: Mo1
Brit is up after the break..
To: kcvl
The news of the indictment of Scooby Lewis, chief of staff of Vice-President Cheney did not fall well and is just another speck in a streak of bad news.
1,051
posted on
10/31/2005 6:29:55 AM PST
by
Denver Ditdat
(Bitter, seething hatred: The religion of Blue State America.)
To: AFPhys
when they were filibustering Brown, Owens and Pryor, and just as unConstitutional with that behavior. I can't believe that you possibly equate a Senate rule that tries to create a 60-vote super majority with people posting their thoughts on a message board. More likley, I think you are just being a sore loser about Meirs.
1,052
posted on
10/31/2005 6:30:18 AM PST
by
Rodney King
(No, we can't all just get along.)
To: All
1,053
posted on
10/31/2005 6:30:30 AM PST
by
blazneyez
(Sometimes I feel diagonally parked in a parallel universe...)
To: madconservative
Now come on, Bush has done a LOT to help the military. Increase funding across the board, and instead of closing bases that the military still wanted, they're consolidating ones that are not major, allowing more funding. And Bush has allowed for things the military needed for years with clinton and couldn't get. I no longer hear stories of Carriers at sea out of spare parts and having to jury rig something, for lack of funding for parts, and things like that, and I ALWAYS heard that kind of story from my military family and friends during the clinton years. The military is MUCH better and larger and more dangerous now than when clinton left office.
1,054
posted on
10/31/2005 6:30:32 AM PST
by
Allen H
(Remember 9-11,God bless our military,Bush,& the USA! A sad ACLU, for a better America!!!)
To: AFPhys
So you concede that Miers met all the requirements set by the Constitution? Of course, as is Pee Wee Herman.
1,055
posted on
10/31/2005 6:30:46 AM PST
by
Rodney King
(No, we can't all just get along.)
To: kcvl
"Hail to the Italian-Americans" ping. LOL.
1,056
posted on
10/31/2005 6:31:09 AM PST
by
Alberta's Child
(I ain't got a dime, but what I got is mine. I ain't rich, but Lord I'm free.)
To: jwalsh07
Hopefully, Corzine will present him to the Committee after he has been defeated for Governor of NJ!
1,057
posted on
10/31/2005 6:31:43 AM PST
by
maica
(We are fighting the War for the Free World --Frank Gaffney)
To: DarthVader
She (Ginsberg) may die before then, she is fighting cancer. Do you have a source for this?
To: shrinkermd
All those who wanted the "nuclear option" now have it. But has anyone thought we might lose. Nuclear war is painful--even the knuckle dragging, Neanderthals from the Red states know that.
The nuclear option means that Senators must vote to give up some of their individual power. Some Senators that are for the nominee will not vote to resend their own filibuster power if he is filibustered. The Republicans must win this fight or any nominee can be filibustered. it is far from a sure thing and why the nuclear option was not used before. The Republicans did not have the votes. What has changed?
1,059
posted on
10/31/2005 6:31:49 AM PST
by
jec41
(Screaming Eagle)
To: Rodney King
You "were demanding an originalist scholar" by denying the importance of an originalist reading of the Constitution.
That is the crux of the problem and the precedent set up by the defeat of Miers by the "conservatives" who no longer are originalists themselves.
1,060
posted on
10/31/2005 6:31:53 AM PST
by
AFPhys
((.Praying for President Bush, our troops, their families, and all my American neighbors..))
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,021-1,040, 1,041-1,060, 1,061-1,080 ... 1,901-1,920 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