| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 07/19/2005 5:18:23 PM PDT by Admin Moderator, reason:
new thread http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1446387/posts |
Posted on 07/19/2005 9:23:04 AM PDT by Howlin
Edited on 07/19/2005 5:12:12 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
TICK TOCK...............
That would be just hilarious...but she's not qualified at all.
Going by unqualified choices, how about Michael Moore on the bench? That would be a dream choice for the Hollywood liberal crowd...
The dinner was last night, I think.
Here is one take on her current (and potential future) stance on abortion and why Bush may pick her because of it.
Key parts from
http://balkin.blogspot.com/2005/07/edith-clement.html
"
Known as a conservative and a strict constructionist in legal circles, Clement also has eased fears among abortion-rights advocates. She has stated that the Supreme Court "has clearly held that the right to privacy guaranteed by the Constitution includes the right to have an abortion" and that "the law is settled in that regard."
President Bush and his advisors have a litmus test for the next Supreme Court nominee.
But it's not the litmus test you are thinking of.
Liberals and Democrats alike are worried that the President will nominate someone who will vote to overturn Roe v. Wade. They needn't worry. That's not likely to happen. In fact, the only litmus test the President is likely to employ is whether a candidate promises *not* to overturn Roe. Here's why.
Bush must decide if he wants to overturn Roe or preserve the Republicans as the majority party. With Roe gone, the pro-choice movement will be energized and Republican politicians will have to state on the record whether they want to criminalize abortion. Women, libertarians, and moderates may bolt the party, destroying Bush's winning coalition. Republicans may dislike Roe, but they may dislike losing elections even more.
A far more prudent strategy, and the one the President and his advisors will likely adopt, would be to appoint Justices who will preserve Roe but chip away at it slowly, for example, by devising new procedural rules that make it difficult to challenge abortion regulations in federal court, by upholding restrictions on particular medical procedures like partial birth abortion, and by further limiting abortions for minors and poor women.
"
(he continues with more at the link about)
Why in the hell doesn't he have to? Failing on this issue will cost the Republican party millions of votes by demoralizing the base, it will destroy any integrity that he has and result in a legacy of failure bigger than his father has.
And, what does it say about conservatives if they keep letting the Republicans break their promises to fix the judiciary, dramatically increase government spending and do nothing about the illegal immigration problem? It's no wonder major change never occurs when far too many are too stupid to hold the Republicans accountable for their broken promises.
But, this would be a broken promise that people will remember for 20 to 30 years. There is no excuse for Bush breaking his promise on this and millions will not be forgetting or voting Republican if that happens.
That's a promise I'd wager you wouldn't keep. I'd win that bet as well. On a single issue however important you'd risk bringing down the country by allowing libs in every office in govt. That's your long term solution...to go cry in the corner and say never again. It takes a brave man to make a pledge to head for cover.
Year late, dollar short (but then again, what else do you expect from presstitutes?)
I'm not sure there is a bench out there that won't break under the weight of his fat ass.
Guess we will find out tonight at 8.
Was it one of Nixion's two failed picks? (I think he ended getting Lewis Powell on the court). Clement Haysworth? maybe? or something like that.
Better if he would preface it with "on this anniversary of Chappaquiddick..."
It would explain his chipper demeanor and smiling face today, anyway!
Our beloved friends over at Dumb-as-crap Underworld were floating the notion on July 7th that Bush had orchestrated the London Terrorist Attacks in order to "get Karl Rove off the front page." What a bunch of crap! Rush was citing a poll today that indicated that the vast majority of the public has no idea whatsoever who Rove is or what he is alleged to have done. Nor do they care. It's all a big red herring, orchestreated by liberals, for liberals, with the aid of the liberal media.
Oh, was it? My mistake then, thanks.
That reminds me -- we haven't heard the press complain that George W. Bush has no gravitas lately, have we?
Do more than pray. If Bush and the Republicans break this promise, they must be held accountable.
Well, your in the company of at least 50 million others dead because of a "one agenda tunnel vision". At least you can speak.
Something tells me that if you walked into your house and found a man with a bloody knife standing over you child and beside them both was a bag of gold, a stack of baron bonds, the title to your house, the keys to your car, the password typed in on your computer to transfer your stocks to a random account other than yours...you'd probably pause and wonder which one to save first...
As for the rest of us "one agenda tunnel folks" the answer comes naturally.
I just remember someone saying that Laura looked nice at it. I am not certain though.
Thanks for sharing that, that's really cool. I hope he runs, but I will support our nominee, we are so close to turning this ship.
Just another thing that didn't stick.
Yes he has the capability of a mean streak,and I am glad he does use it but not very often. He got from being a Cancer and from being Barbara Bush' son,so it is not as harsh. Cheney has a rare nasty streak that I am glad he has,especially when he uses it on Pond scum like Leahy. He is so nice, staid and business-like he can get way with it especially with that charming grin.
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.