Replies

>>>I didn't expect anything better from someone who feeds on what is being fed by the Bush White House.

As usual, you're confused. President Bush isn't about to seek out your opinion for his SC nominees. LMAO And actually the list didn't come from the WH, it came from an outside source, if that really matters to you. Don't try and fool anyone, no matter who Bush may nominate, you'll be against his picks, for one reason or another.

I don't give a rats ass, what you discussed with "colorado tanker" in your post at RE:#577. I took exception to an outrageous remark you slipped in and tried to pass off as the truth.

In that remark you said the following:
But, it is a mute point, because Bush Jr will not be sending conservative justices to the Senate.

This remark shows how intellectually lazy you are and I called it for what it was, "... a bold face lie!"

I then proceeded to lay out the facts and clear the air concerning this distortion you presented. I gave you concrete evidence of President Bushes actual political stance, on who he might consider for his nominees to the Supreme Court (RE:#592). I then followed it up with a list of nominees (RE:#601) that appeared in, "Jurist: The Legal Education Network" in early 2001.

You also said the following at RE:#577, "The solid conservative justices in this country are the likes of Luttig, Posner, Easterbrook, et. al. I can bet with you right now, they won't be nominated, nor anyone who closely resembles them".

Again, this simply isn't the truth. As President Bush stated on MTP, he would consider nominees who are in the mold of Antoin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. And if you look at the latest list of possible Bush nominees to the USSC, you find Luttig, Easterbrook and Posner.

In the future, get you facts straight. Better yet, just shut up!

My facts and thinking have been straight. It is you who constantly gets fooled by stupid propaganda. First of all, no one knows whether the list that you posted is true or not. It is a mere speculation of who might get nominated. The only person I can think of who might make it from that list is Garza. I am speculating that because he is from TX, and a minority. BTW, that list is missing Richard Epstein.

I heard in the debates when Bush mispronounced Scalia's name several times, but I got what he was trying to say. But, he also said that he will not sign CFR, cut down on federal spending, and will put principles over politics. Bush has lost my trust and I simply wouldn't believe anything he says anymore. I will not be surprised if he nominates another Souter.