Posted on 07/01/2005 7:14:03 AM PDT by SueRae
Hearing on Fox News
Yes.
Did he say anything?
Nothing earth shattering.
Doesn't matter. Not necessary to be a lawyer to sit on SCOTUS, although I seriously doubt any non lawyers will be nominated.
We hold both houses and the presidency which allows an easier (not easy, but easier) process. Frist can still go nuclear if he needs to. And part of me thinks they have been holding fire until this exact fight.
Second, the liberals no longer have a monopoly on the msm. We own talk radio, and we have a fairer outlet in FoxNews...which owns the cable race. Plus, the Internet is making serious headway.
Grassroots/red states are more solid than they have been for years. Despite the carping.
So see...we have lots to be thankful for. It could be much, much worse.
I guess you guys are right about Ted and age and all. I like the guy, though.
"Your rudeness is shocking. A president was impeached in 73 and resigned. Roe was in 73. But frankly, I agreed with Roe and still do.
So be a jerk to someone else Dude."""
That was a quick search! What did do think I would be referring to on a this thread, an impeachment? C'mon, don't feign igorance, it's unbecoming. And you were ignorant for NOT KNOWING these facts.
What makes you so sure I'm a "jerk" or "dude" for that matter???
Anyway, if you want to answer that original question posed to you, we could carry on intellectually here! If not, so be it.......you are like many others here, once you are intellectually challenged you resort to name-calling.
"I hadn't realized you were that ignorant of our Nation's history, especially since you are posting on THIS thread."
I hate people that call other people ignorant because they're not mind-readers about some obscure reference.
You know exactly what I meant.
If he nominited Jesus, you and Pat would be whining that he "wears dresses" and "hangs out with a bunch of men."
You'd find SOMETHING to carp about. You don't like Bush, you never have, and there is literally NOTHING he can do that will EVER satisfy you because you can't get over the fact that Buchanan is unelectable.
"We all have one shared goal. Constitutionalist judges. Does it matter if you come at that goal from a social, fiscal, constitutional etc... mindframe? We have the same goal!!"
Yes
I really, truly like Ted too, but I want a younger guy if possible. Don't you?
Please cite one published source that supports your Watergate explanation of GOP Senate opposition to Robert Bork.
"A bunch of libs on a board I visit are saying that they "fear for (their) children" now that O'Connor is leaving."
I fear your children?
LOL! It's just dumb. With everything we need to do to push a conservative agenda, you'd think people would have better things to do!
As an aside, I don't think anyone has mentioned the reality that today is Friday. While I do believe the President knows who he will pick, I doubt he'll let the MSM have the weekend cycle to jump ahead in the PR battle. Talk radio and most cable shows for our side take the weekend off.
Sessions up on FOX.
"obscure reference."
Nice try! It's known as a LANDMARK DECISION!
Is there any hope for Ted Nugent?
Bump. A very destructive tendency. Such people can't be counted on for much.
"Gotta go to work."
I hate when that gets in the way of a good debate!
I do think he has names in the past and just wants to re-check and re-ponder them to make dang sure they will be good.
This retirement is momentous, but this still is a liberal court despite claims otherwise by the NYT calling it a conservative one.
Why?
4 justices are liberals. 3 conservative. 2 swing votes.
To get a 5-4 majority, all the liberal has to do is pick off ONE swing vote. Just one.
To get a conservative majority, we need BOTH swing votes.
With O'Connor's retirement, it helps in that we can add one justice to the conservative column. That would leave one swing vote.
We would just need that vote to get the majority, but with Kennedy increasingly going to thet left, it is ironic that O'Connor's leaving actually may not help us much at all since Kennedy may soon join the liberal bloc.
If that occurs, the liberals will have an unassailable majority, and we would never win a case again.
We need a liberal to retire.
It simply has to happen for a real change in this court.
Yes, what? Yes it matters?
If so, NO, it does NOT matter. Unless some people cannot tolerate a Party base that doesn't own one mind. All reasons are valid. Nothing in the Constitution states any of these reasons are invalid as concerns for constituents.
We have ONE goal. It is a shared goal. Constitutional Justices.
I find it pathetic people seem more intent in this thread in espousing intolerance toward the validity of different fractions of the base, than they seem in targeting the people that stand to be obstructionists. Democrats. RINO's.
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.