Posted on 01/16/2006 5:03:13 PM PST by motife
For Rush to have said this he would have had to be behind the golden eib microphone in the attilla the hun chair. He's on vacation more than he's broadcasting these days..........
I know he's got the $$ he doesn't need to work really any more. I just like to listen to him and don't really enjoy the substitute teachers.
That's exactly what I heard. Thanks. And I'd be very happy if it's Ginsburg who's next to throw in the towel.
Stevens will be the next vancacy and the one the Demos will fight tooth and nail. I predict Stevens will either retire or die in office within the next two years giving Bush a chance to appoint one more. I can only hope I am right.
Bush has odds-on chances of appointing a replacement for Stephens and a good chance of appointing replacements for Breyer and/or Ginsburg as well. Wouldn't it be nice to see a court that is 8-1 conservative? That would change America for the next 100 years.
I hope GWB gets a chance to appease the left with an "affirmative action" candidate...and call it just that!!!..Janice Rogers Brown...a black female that is well qualified...*G*...Surely the left would never fight affirmative action would they??
That's my point. There is no Ronald Reagan or George W. Bush for conservatives to rally round.
The GOP though MUST win in 2008. I don't care who it is, but we can't have a Democrat win.
The Gore and Kerry elections show how razor thin the balance is between blue and red.
I think it's analagous to 1968, where the Vietnam war was the major issue, not domestic politics. So we got a very moderate Richard Nixon, who was however brilliant in foreign policy.
Although Reagan ran in 1968, belatedly, I doubt he could have won that year.
Since there isn't a conservative this time who transcends party label like Reagan, it's a different ball game.
Between McCain and Rudy, Rudy is by far the more loyal Republican. Both are hawks against the Islamofascists, but McCain's judgement I think is very questionable. If Rudy could fight the Islamists for one or two terms, the party would find it's next Reagan or Bush while Rudy kept it out of the hands of the Democrats, the thought of which scares me to death on so many levels. At this point in history, NOTHING is more important than fighting the terrorists, and standing up to Iran. No Democrat would do that.
you are correct,,,of course
I'm totally with you on Giuliani. Why so many self-proclaimed "conservatives" are singing his praises has me scratching my head. He is an abortion-loving, gun-grabbing, pro-gay-rights-agenda social liberal!
I am 28, and wasn't a conservative but I can give you a rough assessment.
1) He was a Republican nominated by a Republican. Go back to Roberts early memo that was released from the Reagan W.H. Someone in that administration stated that a Republican nominee was as good as Gold. Roberts drew an arrow from R v W to a certain famous Justice starting with a "B" that was a decisive opinion in that case.
In otherwords, People used to mistakenly fall back on the idea a Republican nominated by a Republican would be solid. People have finally wised up.
2) Everyone wants to trust their President. Conservatives loved Reagan for example. But he failed twice. Once you can semi blame on Democrats re: Bork. Kennedy was his third nomination. O'Connor was Reagan succombing to pressure to nominate a woman. A good majority of this base wanted to give deference to G.W.B. as well, I wanted to do so, but Souter on top of Kennedy on top of O'Connor on top of others on top of the recent decisions from the Supreme Court plus open ended questions about Miers' Judicial philosophy and questionable qualifications was the final straw. After 50-60 years giving someone the benefit of the doubt was finally too much to ask. It just so happened this occured when G.W.B. was President, but truth is that it was one disappointment by Republican President after another that climaxed finally.
3) Conservatives have not had the appartus to challenge a nomination, vet and groom a nominee until now. Nor had it been THE issue to dominant THREE consecutive elections, each election more so since the last before. Toss WOT in there on the last two elections to share space, but it remained one of the TWO most important issues in those two elections.
4) I do NOT believe 41 wanted a Liberal on the Court. However, neither was 41 a conservative. he didn't even naturally trend conservative, which I do think G.W.B.'s instincts are to conservatism even if he doesn't always follow them. Bush 41 was a moderate that played conservative to get elected. Which makes it kind of odd he ended up appointing two Justices at opposite ends of the spectrum from each other. Souter and Thomas. I'd actually expect him to be the one to appoint O'Connor and kennedy, but that was Reagan.
41 was lied to about Souter's "conservatism". He believed the wrong people, conservatives as they had done for decades gave him benefit of the doubt, and so we have Souter.
Now does this mean Roberts and Alito are sure bets? No one is a sure bet. It only means we've taken the vetting promise seriously for the first time.
She voted two different ways on the same issue, the same day. That's a real swinging vote. The issue was religious monuments in public. She was the key vote each time. The liberals miss her.
The GOP has promoted some of the worst justices of all time. She was one of them. She voted wrong on Kelo too, am I not right?
Goldwater protege?
Let's hear it for Trenton, N.J.
Your post wasn't about the WOT.
Your post addressed there would be retirements in the '08-'12 cycle so it was imperative we get a Republican in there. I rightly informed having a Republican President guarentees nothing about the Courts.
If you want to argue the WOT supercedes the Courts as consideration, that is a fair argument to make, but it wasn't the subject of your first post nor the subject of this thread.
I think we can draw from Bush's poor but improving poll numbers, that a fatigue has set in towards him that makes 2008 a perilous year for the GOP. Primarily it's more Iraq war fatigue, but like G.W.'s father was sunk by the "no new taxes" pledge, I think some of G.W.'s problem in the "no WMD" problem lingers around him, however unfairly.
The peril is that whoever follows Bush in the GOP, may inherit the "Iraq war fatigue" making it impossible for them to get elected.
There is one candidate in the GOP who is innoculated from that fatigue and would, in my opinion, win easily if nominated.
No, he's not a movement conservative, but neither was Nixon, Ford, or G.H.W. Bush. However, I'd take anyone of those 3 without reservation over Hillary or whoever the Dems nominate.
Until and unless a conservative who transcends party label comes along, like Reagan did in spades, and G.W. to a lesser extent, pragmatism must prevail in 2008.
I doubt Scalia or Kennedy will pull a John Paul Stevens and wait until they're 90 to retire.
Your welcome.
He's in Palm Springs California for a golf tournament all week. He picked a bad week to be off; I wanted to hear his comments on 24.
I think you're on to something.
With Justice Alito, it will change to 4, 4, and one wild card, again Kennedy. If Roberts and Alito can persuade Kennedy more successfully than Rehnquist did, this may become a true 5-4 court. There will definitely be lots more conservative intellectual firepower on this court with the new justices.
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.