Posted on 10/05/2005 12:50:24 PM PDT by smoothsailing
I don't expect they will try to badger her. I expect they will instead come off with a superior patronizing attitude attempting to paint her as unqualified -- feeding off the tripe being but out by the beltway establishment Republicans who are pissed because one of their homies didn't get picked.
That's when we'll see what she's made of and from what I have heard about this lady is that she has a backbone of steel, will have done all of her homework and will very politely and calmly open an industrial strength can of Texas whoop ass on them.
Everyone is saying that Roberts knowledge wowed them and that's true, but wowing the likes of fat Teddy, Biden or Nina Totenburg dosen't take a lot. My guess is that this lady will surprise the hell out a lot of the critics.
Count me in. I don't know why, but I have a good feeling about it.
Accept current illegals as here to stay for the most part, but at least control the borders. At the same time reform immigration laws and make it a little less of a battle to immigrate legally. IOW, stop the bleeding.
The more illogical screaming about her, especially in the face of mounting evidence that she is what she is purported to be, I think I will go along with this one...
Besides, it makes the Constipationalists and the Buchananites go insane and WORLDNUTDAILY was at it's nutty best the other day, so it's all good :)
Clueless are those who pretend to be constitutional scholars or continue to ignore the number of judicial nominees that have been filibustered. Clueless are those that depend on the likes of Ann Coulter for a seal of approval. Clueless are those who continue to hold the President accountable for unresolved issues on which he never took a satisfactory position (to them) in the first place. Clueless are those who want a bloody battle, regardless of the outcome, even if the war can be won otherwise.
Bush campaigned on a short list of issues, one of which was the judicial nominees. He stood up in front of the press and reiterated those pledges yesterday and said that Miers meets the standard. It was so obvious when he said more than once that he knew this nominee would not change that he had learned from his father and yet the clueless masquerading as the most well informed know he didn't. To you I say congratulations, with that kind of psychic ability you would have thought you wouldn't have supported Bush in the first place and made sure that you're own man was sitting in the White House.
Because he won the Cold War and freed 700 million people. You get cut a lot of slack for doing something like that.
Yes, we may all be pleasantly surprised.
Harriet is a stealth candidate, an admission of weakness and pandering. If you put lipstick on a pig it's still a pig. She's too old and a mediocrity.
Just ask yourself, is this the swing jurist we worked 25 years for? The best candidate possible to stop the erosion of constitutional law? Anyone who answers yes is just a fat liar.
Sixty is too old? Looking at past history of the court, she'll likely have 25 years on the bench. As to mediocrity, how many law firms have you headed? How many bar associations have you headed? How many times a day does the POUTS call you into his office for advice?
"Sixty too old? Looking at past history of the court, she'll likely have 25 years on the bench. As to mediocrity, how many law firms have you headed? How many bar associations have you headed? How many times a day does the POUTS call you into his office for advice?"
Too bad he doesn't call me into his office,we wouldn't have CFR, the Pill boondoggle, illegal immigrants, a ballooning budget, the Education department, and a bunch of other spineless sops to socialism. As far as bar associations, why would I want to hang around with a bunch of leftist lawyers?
And who is POUTS? Is that what you do all day?
We both have every right to our own point of view.Why don't we just leave it at that.
"But even being a "true unabashed conservative" does not guarantee that your appointees won't turn toward the "dark side" i.e. O'Connor and Kennedy."
Of course you're right. None of us know how this will really turn out yet.
Excellent!
The problem with both appointments is that the GOP is setting a precident that conservatives with a record will not be appointed to the Surpreme Court. Bush is letting the Rats set the rules to the game. That is unacceptable, the left can appoint the head of the ACLU, but the right can not appoint anyone that has ever expressed a conservative thought? And we going to allow this without even the hint of a fight? And the kool-aid drinkers call this a brillant move? LOL, win the battle, lose the war, split the party is not brillant thinking, .
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.