Bush To Choose Ex-Starr Aide

Washington Post ^ | June 19,2003 | Mike Allen

[StriperSniper]

I guess Bork turned down the job

Nah, just waiting for 'recess'.

[hchutch]

You got it.

There will be one heck of a filibuster on this. Bet on it. The chance she will NOT filibuster this is pretty darn small.

[Redbob]

"Hey, didn't we just pass an ADDITIONAL tax cut after the $350 Billion one, to give more money back to low-income families?"

Yes, and BTW, that's called "welfare" when you give tax money "back" to someone who has NOT PAID any income tax!

[hobson]

That reminds me of the last time I bought a new car. Everytime the salesman asked me what it would take for me to buy the car I went up on the options and down on the price. He asked the same question 3 or 4 times and never caught on to what I was doing.

Bush continues to run the dims around in circles. The amazing thing is they keep falling for it. So much fun to watch...

[Howlin]

Petty little witch!

[deport]

This should be a great "show." And we'll surely hear all about the Starr report again!

---

Actually I don't care if I ever hear about the Clintons or the report again. Personally I'd love all of them and their actions to be wiped off the front pages and regulated to the bins of history and/or legal matters. But I guess that's not to be with them.

These Judges will be the best thing this Socialist UN Man, President Bush, will leave from his tenure. I believe the malcontents have missed the boat on who he would appoint.

[Howlin]

But the point is, if we HAVE to hear about the Clintons (which, as you say, we don't seem to be able to avoid), at least we're hearing the trash!

As for the "others," the boat left them at the dock. That's what they're so unhappy about. Think of it as a "gift" to us.

[lugsoul]

Based on what? His record doesn't reveal anything except that he has been a law clerk and worked for Starr. There are a few thousand former law clerks, and there is nothing about the OIC that makes one particularly qualified to be an appellate judge. Most would say that being, say, a trial judge first would help.

Other than working for the OIC, what makes this guy a good choice? If it is simply an issue of ideology, there are plenty of experienced judges with the right ideology. This is a political appointment, nothing more.

[TC Rider]

Oh man, this will certainly frost Hillary's balls.

[deport]

Think of it as a "gift" to us.

---

Yes all 'gifts' gladly accepted..... lol.

Even those whose core values believe the President is a Socialist UN Man but will change their tune and vote for him next year. LOL. Talk about valueless, it's them.

[Miss Marple]

How are they going to question him? The Republicans won't question him about it, and the Rats sure can't, without opening a can of worms.

They will attempt to smear him from some other source. Hopefully they won't find anything to use, and will be befuddled on what to do.

[Grampa Dave]

Thanks for posting this. GW has to be the left wing's worst nightmare in 7 decades when he does something like this.

[OldFriend]

Exactly how we got Scalia without an argument. The dems had rejected the first two nominations and realized they just had to give it up already............LOL......and Scalia was voted in!!!!

[Grampa Dave]

You just may have nailed what caused $enator Hildebea$t to respond the way she did in that picture.

[Grampa Dave]

When the Rats think that they control GW, the reality is when he does something like this.

[Howlin]

Nice catch!

[HAL9000]

Based on what?

As the report states in the first paragraph, Kavanaugh was the author of the Starr Report which revealed the truth about Bill Clinton's rape of Juanita Broaddrick.

Kavanaugh's report did not explicitly mention Broaddrick by name, but he crafted the report in such a way that it could be determined by logical deduction. It was then a matter of decoding that information (which was revealed exclusively on Free Republic before your signup date.) That information swayed enough votes in the House of Representatives to pass the Articles of Impeachment against Clinton.

If Kavanaugh had not designed the report that way, Al Gore would be president today.

[lugsoul]

Okay. Even if what you say is absolute truth - not conjecture (most of those in Congress that seemed swayed by the Brodderick issue said they got the info from the "evidence room"), why does this make him a good choice to sit on a U.S. Court of Appeals. That may make him a good choice to be a prosecutor (a U.S. Atty, for example), but I've seen nothing about him that indicates he is anywhere near the top of the list of those qualified to sit on a U.S. Court of Appeals - the highest judicial post in the land, short of the SCOTUS. Is there anything else that you would contend makes him an excellent choice for this post, other than the obvious political impact?

[SERE_DOC]

Go on Hil, do that Monica impression thing again

[lugsoul]

As an aside, I've got nothing against Kavanaugh - the point is that having the "right" political beliefs, or even having a "correct" view of constitutional interpretation, is nowhere near enough to make one qualified for such a lofty position as a U.S. Court of Appeals judge. I know many people have no inkling of this, because most people go through life never having to deal with a judge of any kind - and almost no one ever has any dealings with an appellate judge. But being a judge, just like being a prosecutor or any other job, involves certain job skills - most of which are only acquired through experience. I've dealt with many a judge that had what I considered to be the "right" viewpoint, but who were terrible judges. At the end of the day, very little about the job of judge is based upon political values or matters of constitutional interpretation. There is a reason we call them "judges" - their job is to judge, and wisdom and experience are the primary qualifications for that task. Since you stated that he was a good choice for the position, I asked what the basis for that statement would be.