Replies

You're getting a bit bent --- I have not once posted my support for this ruling. I hate it, but I will not be a party to Bush bashing.

A democrat president will send me to the Cayman's, and send this country to hell.

Good idea. Hate the law, but don't criticize the signer. It ain't bashing if it's so.

Sorry, but GWB signed it. That is something for which he is going to have to take personal responsibility.

I'll say this on top of it. ONLY GWB CAN FIX THIS. He's on record saying that he didn't agree with the bill, he ran saying that if you vote for him, he'd oppose it, and then he signed it. He should now apologize for having this get so out of hand, and take steps to set it right.

If you call that bashing, sorry. He can fix it today by saying, "I made a huge mistake. I passed the buck, and now I have to fix it. I'm submitting a bill rolling back the 60 day and 30 day rule. There is nothing constitutional about it, and I should have vetoed the bill in the first place. I didn't because I felt like half a loaf was better than no loaf at all, and I actually believed the SCOTUS would never see that the law would pass constitutional muster. I was obviously wrong, and I can't allow this to stand as written."

He's not going to say it, but I think every conservative wants him to. It would show incredible integrity and personal accountability that is absent most politicians.

If you think that is Bush bashing, then I have to ask you where you draw the line? What is the difference between you and the Eleanor Clifts of the world that would back Clinton if he started rounding up people and gassing them in camps.

What is the difference, to you, between criticism and 'bashing'?

Look, I think Clinton was evil personified, and I think he set us back in ways we can't even appreciate, but do you actually believe he would have signed this law? Even his basest instincts would have told him that, tactically, this is bad for him and his party for all the fundraising reasons.

Leave aside any imputed respect he has for the Constitution, he would have killed this for all the wrong reasons and come out ahead of GWB on this one.

Historically, they will go back and say, "It all started with them ramming through CFR in 03 after Enron, and Bush not wanting to veto it, signed it and counted on the law to be hammered by the SCOTUS. After that the 2nd amendment fell, then the 5th - all amended by SCOTUS. That same year, in 2003, SCOTUS basically told the states that it couldn't make laws regarding what someone could or could not do in their bedroom. Well it only took another 15 years for both polygamy and beastiality to be protected by the constitution. Gay marriage is now more common than straight marriage, since the issues that were plaguing fathers in the family court system couldn't apply to same sex marriages - parties were on roughly equal footing from the standpoint of traditional 'gender victim' roles. . ."

You save this and then take a look at things in 2013, and if I'm wrong I will buy you an excellent bottle of wine, very gladly I might add.