Replies

Many of us voted for GWB for no other reason than to have him pick justices in the mold of Scalia and Thomas. It appears to me that this pick has betrayed that trust.

Are you willing to cut Bush any slack on this promise? After all, the unconstitutional filibusters concocted by Schumer, Kennedy, Clinto et. al. were implemented after he made that promise.

For the record, my two biggest reasons for voting Bush were:

1. The courts, and

2. the terrorists.

Are you willing to cut Bush any slack on this promise?

After the borders and the spending? No slack from me. Nominate what you promised. Lets have the fight. If we lose, then nominate Meiers as a compromise pick. But to not even try....smacks of wimpishness that 41 would have been ashamed of.

Are you willing to cut Bush any slack on this promise? After all, the unconstitutional filibusters concocted by Schumer, Kennedy, Clinto et. al. were implemented after he made that promise.

Make me an offer (not you literally, GWB and the GOP - and tell it to me straight).

The rulers want us to accept the political process of stealth. Where the Senators and the people are satisfied with being uncertain, because certainty or convicion would erupt into a fight over principle.

I reject that system of government, and demand transparency. I want to see conviction expressed in certain terms, not "code words" and focus group tested "buzz phrases" like "strict constructionist" with no more. SHow me the money.

I reject the premise that a President should choose nominees, under the constraint that the Senate can at a whim set the hurdle for confirmation, now at 60, to whatever level it chooses. That is absurdity - and yet the chattering class and sheep go baaah bahhh .... cluck cluck cluck. The president is supposed to have a simple majority, up or down vote, after airing out the principles and convictions of the nominee in no uncertain terms.

Those who settle for less are not preserving the Republic for their posterity.