Posted on 10/08/2005 3:00:04 PM PDT by AntiGuv
Sorry, but John Roberts was a BRILLIANT choice!!
Oh, and Bush pushed Congress to pass the largest socialistic expansion of government since LBJ, Medicare Prescription Drugs, a bill that Congress was resistant to passing until Bush pushed for it. As much as it pains to me to say it, the growth of government under Clinton was less than it has been under Bush. And if Clinton had passed the Patriot Act and Homeland Security without doing anything to control our borders, this website would be up in arms. The Bushbots here have earned the name.
"The Roberts appointment is not a disaster, though it shows a poverty of imagination."
ROFLMAO... Bush only picked the most qualified person out there... how "unimaginative" to not pick an ACLU lawyer like Clinton did.
Does that apply all the pro-Meiers freepers who call anyone opposed to Meiers elitest, sexist, and trolls from DU?
Maybe my history is little rusty. My recollection is that during his second term Ronald Reagan laid the groundwork that ended the Cold War and brought down the Soviet Union, potentially avoiding a nuclear armageddon.
Nobody can predict the future, but if the real estate and stock markets roll over and fall, this thread may be debating the high point of Bush's second term.
Reagan laid the ground work in his first term. In his second, he was dogged by Iran Contra, and showed the first signs of mental aging. The evil empire collaped on Bush 1's watch.
where's the BARF alert?
Stick a fork in it. It's done.
That's my opinion. We have Freepers and others going balistic because they don't know Miers just like they didn't know Souter. The difference is that Bush41 didn't know Souter, either - and Bush43 is, to no small degree, about not making mistakes he knows his dad made.Bush43 is gonna retire to Texas in three short years - and he knows he'll be hearing about how his SCOTUS nominees turned out for the rest of his life.
The "two more" is exactly what I think GW was playing for. He knows Meiers is a solid choice, but can't be shown to be hard right because she has no track record. He is trying to entice another Supreme into retirement, by demonstrating his care for the country and doing what is "right" over doing what is "Right"(wing).
He'd better be careful though - that crony label is starting to get sticky. Also - there are quite a few uncomfortable points in this letter - immigration, runaway budget, lack of SS reform - I trust GW, but I hope he knows what he is doing.
So you will preemptively condemn anyone who disagrees with the you as "bushbots." That makes you superior how?
Julie Myers, another inexperienced Bush lawyer, has been nominated to run the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency.
That nomination is still making me scratch my head. I want to trust Bush, I really do, but there are these nagging doubts...
So far, his Judgement has been OK.
I THINK we should give him the "Benefit of the Doubt" & see how his Choices "Work Out!!"
We Hired the guy to be our "CEO;" SO FAR, he's Done OK!!
Doc
Ah, yes. Ronald Reagan, who knew nothing about Sandra Day O'Connor or Anthony Kennedy, and nominated them both.
Ronald Reagan, who cut and ran after 267 Marines were killed in Lebanon.
Ronald Reagan, who signed ZERO anti-abortion bills.
Ronald Reagan, who cut taxes, then raised them again, two years later.
I loved Ronald Reagan, who restored hope to this country after Jimmy Carter's malaise. But he had three SC picks, and he struck out on two of them.
This bloodletting amongst us folks is not a bad thing. Some things are worth fighting over and the role of the courts is one of them. If we lose the Senate in '06 what have we lost? It hasn't really benefited us very much. If you win elections you are expected to lead.
We have won elections and we have not led. We have been timid and spineless in the Senate. We are retreating from our past boldness in the House. We appear to be aimless in the WH. Given our overall failure to lead the country, the people of this country would be well within their rights to kick us out of the capitol and the WH.
A certain faction preemptively trashes anyone who dares to disagree with Bush on this nomination. Does that make them superior?
I expect Harriet to get on the court and then proceed to kick the crap out of liberal elitists. She and Roberts will refuse to create special rights to gay marraige and abortion at any time for any female at any age. These special rights do not exist in our constitution and these two will refuse to amend our contstitution by judical decree.Within one year --- two at the most --- there will be ample evidence that Roberts and Miers were the right picks at the right time. I wonder how many of the people here who are screaming that Bush betrayed them will return to this forum and honestly admit they were wrong.
The bet is whether Roberts/Miers will be in full agreement with either Thomas or Scalia in 90% of rulings this next year. I say no.
For Miers, we'd need to go with the 06-07 session.
We do well not to evaluate the propriety of a decision by simply anticipating or projecting that one day in the future all will be well. Our role as citizens of the republic is to evaluate the propriety of any decision based on the evidence we have at hand and experience. Anything else is an implicit faith in men. No one should be expected to engage in that.
Nope. I think they are cut from the same cloth. Meaningless name-calling is the same no matter who does it.
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.