Posted on 07/27/2005 6:38:35 PM PDT by bannie
Edited on 07/28/2005 5:33:32 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
On Hannity and Colmes, While discussing the requirements of a Supreme Court nominee, Ann just sarcastically noted that it was ok to kill a girl at Chappiquiddic. Colmes said that was a low blow and that comment was below her.
WHY??? WHAT is so darned SACRED about mentioning the truth???
Ann said, "Why..."
Colmes didn't answer, and the set was quiet.
Hannity and Reagan (another guest) should have spoken up.
This is another example of "The Emperor is NAKED!"
***snore***
This part of the story also seems relevant considering the Dem Senators' current whining about the WH releasing any and all documents about Roberts so they can (supposedly) make a more informed decision about his suitability to serve on SCOTUS.
Yes, intoxication is the only explanation that makes one iota of sense to explain why anybody would avoid reporting the accident or seeking help.
I read there was quite a current in the channel. Fine. But there were houses within a few hundred feet of where the car went off the bridge yet Kennedy never went to any of them.
Actually, Ted summoned his lawyer friends from the party (where everybody had been that evening prior to the accident) and told them what happened, had them drive him back to the scene. THEN he invoked lawyer-client privlege to prevent them from reporting it or talking about what he said to anybody. They were frantically trying to get him to report it, but he really never did. The license plate was ID'd and he was drawn in after the car was pulled out.
Then Senator Kennedy abruptly discontinued his questions."
Didn't happen
http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/bl_rumsfeld_kennedy.htm
She behaved no differently than she does any time she's on their show. I don't see them crossing her off the guest list. She brings in viewers.
LOL No, I was actually thinking of the fact that Kennedy has trouble making it all the way across a bridge. Thus, short ride, long bridge.
And were the family of Mari Jo paid off? Do you know? I heard this once upon a time. So sad.
For sure, Prairie, teddy kennedy looks and acts like a greatly burdened man..there is something about him that just reeks of anger, guilt and cover-up. Wonder if the booze helps him to forget who he really is?
And your point is what?
If you have read the previous posts, you will realize that it is the behavior after the accident which is being criticized here.
Although kennedy was with a young woman who was not his wife (Laura was with her boyfriend), we have not been criticizing that.
We have been criticizing his selfish negligence of MaryJo's live after the wreck. She was alive for some time--and apparently uninjured. This was not the same for Laura.
MaryJo was struggling to stay alive while teddy went off for hours and waited to sober up. teddy went off to find lawyers and buddies to help him get his story together...while an uninjured, trapped MaryJo died BECAUSE OF HIS SELFISHNESS AFTER THE ACCIDENT.
I am sure that you can see a great number of differences. Morality is paramount.
Admin Moderator, would you please delete my Post #408?
I misattributed a quote. Thanks.
I loved how Ann looked around surprised and said, "What? We can't talk about it?"
SHE IS WONDERFUL!!!
I asked this very question on FR just a few days ago and received an affirmative response...amount still undisclosed. As to your other questions, I don't know the answers. Great questions though.
I think Fat Teddy is mostly angry that this cost him any chance of running for the Presidency.
THANK YOU FOR THE CLIP!!!!
POST 623
YOU'RE GREAT!!!
You're right: Reagan did speak up. When I first saw it, I didn't pay good enough attention. I guess the silence at the end was what caught my attention.
:-)
I think teddy wouldn't have to pay for it, even now. In fact, maybe he'd get off even easier today. Look at the Arkansides.
I've wondered that myself. Anyone have a pic of Mrs. Colmes?
(CNSNews.com) -- Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts "will be expected to answer fully" any questions about his views on controversial issues that could come before the court in the future, according to Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.). But, during the 1967 confirmation debate over future Justice Thurgood Marshall, Kennedy argued that Supreme Court nominees should "defer any comments" on such matters.
In his June 20, floor speech responding to President Bush's nomination of Roberts to the Supreme Court, Kennedy argued that senators "must not fail in our duty to the American people to responsibly examine Judge Roberts' legal views."
Kennedy listed a number of issues, including workers' rights, health care and environmental regulations, that he considers important.
"Each of these issues, and many others, [have] been addressed by the Supreme Court in recent years," Kennedy said. "In many of these cases, the Court was narrowly divided, and these issues are likely to be the subject of future Court decisions in the years to come."
The Massachusetts Democrat said he is troubled by Roberts' strict interpretation of the Constitution's "commerce clause" and added that "other aspects of Judge Roberts' record also raise important questions about his commitment to individual rights.
"Because Judge Roberts has written relatively few opinions in his brief tenure as a judge, his views on a wide variety of vital issues are still unknown," Kennedy charged. "What little we know about his views and values lends even greater importance and urgency to his responsibility to provide the Senate and the American people with clear answers."
Kennedy listed examples of conservative positions Roberts had argued on behalf of both private clients and as the principle deputy solicitor general for the administration of President George H. W. Bush.
"Judge Roberts represented clients in each of these cases, but we have a duty to ask where he stands on these issues," Kennedy continued. "I join my colleagues in the hope that the process will proceed with dignity. But the nominee will be expected to answer fully, so that the American people will know whether Judge Roberts will uphold their rights." See Video
During the 1967 confirmation debate over the nomination of then-Solicitor General Thurgood Marshall to the Supreme Court, however, Kennedy held a different view about the types of questions the nominee should be required to answer. Film footage obtained by Cybercast News Service shows Kennedy's response to the prospect of senators asking Marshall questions about how he might rule in future cases.
"We have to respect that any nominee to the Supreme Court would have to defer any comments on any matters, which are either before the court or very likely to be before the court," Kennedy said during a 1967 press conference. "This has been a procedure which has been followed in the past and is one which I think is based upon sound legal precedent." See Video
Marshall was serving President Lyndon Johnson as solicitor general when he was nominated in the summer of 1967. Prior to that, he had been an attorney for the NAACP, and had successfully argued the Brown v. Board of Education Supreme Court case that racially integrated the nation's public schools. Marshall's nomination was opposed by Southern Democrats who feared his confirmation would further the cause of racial equality in the United States, but he was confirmed by a vote of 69 to 11 on Aug. 30, 1967.
Multiple calls to Sen. Kennedy's office seeking comment for this report were not returned.
That's with his wife's sister Monica, right?
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.