Posted on 10/04/2005 7:16:56 PM PDT by buzzyboop
So, you're accusing the President of idiocy for nominating someone he trusts to be a strict a constitutionalist and a conservative... from his own personal experience, but you refuse to be criticized for criticizing the President, using the defense that I don't know your personal experience on the matter.
Are you daft?
I never said I wouldn't vote, I always do and I take it very seriously.
Thwarting a proposal-perhaps-to grant amnesty to millions of illegal aliens, a proposal that the head of your party wholeheartedly supports?
Enacting CAFTA, which, regardless of its merits, is an unqualified political negative for the GOP?
Refusing to defer-or repeal-the exorbitantly expensive, unnecessary, and potentially budget-crippling Medicare prescription drug benefit, even though that would be the only sensible thing to do, both on a policy and political level?
Reneging on his one core promise to his conservative constituency, i.e. to appoint known Constitutionalists to the Supreme Court?
perhaps you're the biggest moron I've ever seen here.
Why don't you tell me why bogging down the Senate in a Supreme Court fight for the next four months or longer will promote a conservative agenda or help us win any new elections?
The agenda you so want to pursue would be halted while the Senate fought out the confirmation of a known conservative for the Supreme Court.
Any conservative and strict constructionist is all we need on the court. We don't need a top of the line Roberts-like nominee to fill the O'Conner slot. We don't need to fight over a slot that can just easily go to a conservative strict constructionist without a prolonged fight.
Appointing a known conservative would be like paying $10.00 for a $2.00 plastic chair. That's $8.00 you can't spend on something else. The smart money is on the guy who buys the same chair for $2.00 and a six pack of beer. That guy gets to sit in the chair and enjoy it too.
You said: "He's the idiot who picked her."
Now you say, "I'm not accusing the president of idiocy and you know it,"
You reserve the right to criticize the President for his choice of nominee. A choice which the President says was based on his personal experience with her and his knowledge of her qualifications and her judicial philosophies.
I don't deny you that right, but defending your position from criticism by saying that I don't know anything about your experience with judges is crazy. If you can't cut the President some slack on his nomination of Miers because of his experience with selecting judges to Federal benches (for which he has an excellent record), then you don't deserve any slack on that point either.
And as it turns out, you did call the President an idiot. All I did was pose the ever rhetorical question, "Are you daft?"
Got a citation?
I just read a 700+ thread and half the posters can't understand this.
You're as daft as they come, gadfly.
If she does not turn out as advertised, then the person/idiot that picked her must be made an example of.
"To tell you the truth, I think Thomas has a first-rate legal mind, "
This is kind of neat going back and forth with you.
I couldn't agree more. I'm not denigrating the intellect of Thomas in the least. I heard him speak to a foster home for boys once on c-span. I don't know what part of him is bigger - his mind or his heart. How anyone can put this man down has neither.
To me, making good SC decisions is more a matter of morality (within the strictures of the Constitution ) than intellectual ruminations. Was ending slavery a moral or intellectual exercise? And what kind of intellectual ju-jitsu decides in favor of the snail darter over human needs?
I'm just saying we don't need intellectuals who just dance on the head of a pin. You can argue that black is white intellectually but not morally.
One doesn't even need a law degree to sit on the SC. It's all about doing the right thing within the Constitution.
I trust Bush if he says Miers will do the right thing, even though my first choice was JRB just to ram it down the dems' throat if for no other reason.
For those of us who did not see Rush on Greta's show, don't worry. He will recap everything he said, complete w/sound bites on Wednesday's show. We can count on it. At this point, I myself am leery of taking his opinions as gospel and making them my own.
I checked the context. You called the President an idiot who picked her [Miers].
If you're going to criticize the President on the basis that you disagree with his personal experience with a nominee, while rebuff any criticisms of your own views based on your personal experience with judges in general, you're asking for a double standard to be applied.
The point I'm making is that you've joined the hysterics in jumping to conclusions about a nominee we don't know very much about, but what we do know is that she is a conservative lawyer with a lot of practical experience. You don't trust the President's decision because you can't vet her personally and have no record on which to base a decision.
If one thing can be said for the President's judicial picks, they have been conservative and they have been constructionists. There is no reason to expect that he has changed his criteria.
Tell you what, write down my handle and email me when she turns out to be a Souter. Until then I won't be apologizing for calling you on your irrationality, which is the definition of daft that applies. You on the other hand called the President an "idiot" which was quite clear.
Nope. I said that if she doesn't turn out as advertised, then the idiot who picked her deserves to be made an example of.
I've also said that there's never gonna be another Souter because there will never be another justice that does a 180 the day after confirmation. A jurist can do as much damage -- even more -- by eroding over time without instantly losing credibility among his or her colleagues and becoming nothing more than just a vote, as Souter has become.
"Let me distance myself from those who are questioning President Bush's judgment."
If you believe it was a lost opportunity, then you must question the judgement of the person who created the lost opportunity.
So is he saying he just doesn't want associated with those Move on types or is he not questioning the Presidents judgement? He's got an open book on that one.
You think I'm advocating that? I'm not. The President gets to make his choices. I can be happy with his choice, or I can be dismayed.
My only point on this thread is Rush talks with deniability phrases.
What is todays missed opportunity will be tomorrows "Bush's enemies underestimated him again". Bookmark this thread. It will happen.
Fair enough but in the end what matters most to me is what she does if she is confirmed. Roberts was truly brilliant and it was great theater watching him at the hearing but as some conservative detractors said, he too is an unknown.
Not true with Scalia. The Dems had the majority when Bork was nominated, but the Republicans were in the majority when Scalia was nominated. His being the first Italian American nominated to the Supreme Court from what I heard had a lot to do with his being confirmed.
My point was that back then Republicans did not shirk from their responsibility of representing the conservative movement, or protecting the Constitution.
The fact that over a decade and a half after the denouement of the Thomas hearings-media spectacle that they were-and having gained a majority of seats in the United States Senate-most of whose occupants are routinely depicted as being "conservative," at least for cosmetic purposes-the Republican Party is weaker-and the prominence of conservatives in that party on the decline, not the ascent-is not something that I choose to celebrate.
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.