Posted on 10/27/2005 5:54:48 AM PDT by SoFloFreeper
just breaking!!!!!!!!
SEXIST!!!!!!!! Janice Rogers Brown has always served under or been appointed by MEN!!! Clearly you think men are superior and women are their servants and that's why you want Brown to serve you on the Supreme Court you SEXIST!
Listen to her show. She started it by thanking Miers for withdrawing, but has spent three hours trashing her.
She must have had her show planned, and can't adjust to breaking news.
She looks mean and nasty, in between all the "you knows".
Do you realize that the people who gave Bush his big victory in 2004 was the Hispanic vote?
I wonder what they want?
excellent idea to appoint Santorum.
I agree. I don't think they see what they have done, some of them will never see it.
What a tragic thing for this country.
Just speaking for myself, I never hurled any vitriol on this issue. I'm aware there are those who did, on BOTH sides of the Miers debate.
What happens now is up to the President. He made a mistake. He's human like the rest of us. He tried to avoid a fight by sending up a stealth candidate. That was a mistake, and a huge one at that.
Unless and until we force the Democrats into a very public fight over the judiciary, we'll never have a chance to reign in our imperial left-leaning court system. Just look at the Senate votes on various nominees. Clinton's two leftist nominees were easily confirmed, even when the GOP was in control of the Senate. Breyer was confirmed unanimously. Ginzburg, a radical lefty with a long paper trail, was confirmed 97-3.
While the Republicans were busy playing nice, the Democrats were busy organizing radical groups to oppose our nominees, smearing nominees, and filibustering. What's our response to this bullying from the Democrats? Is it to confront them? No, of course not. That would be "too divisive". Instead, we send up stealth nominees, EVEN WHEN WE CONTROL THE SENATE, so as not to ruffle Democrat feathers. We then cross our fingers and hope the stealth candidate, once on the court, turns out okay. But the track record on that is pretty bad. Thomas was something of a stealth candidate, I suppose, but so were Stevens, O'Connor, Kennedy, and Souter.
The Democrats have defined the term "judicial mainstream" to mean leftist judicial activism. That needs to be challenged. Until it's challenged, we're stuck trying to sneak stealth nominees past them, EVEN WHEN WE CONTROL THE SENATE.
Every time a vacancy occurs on the court, the Democrats immediately run to the nearest microphone and scream that the new nominee had better not be someone outside the "judicial mainstream". Our response should be to challenge them over what that term means. Instead, we send up a cypher and say something along the lines of this: "Our nominee is not outside the judicial mainstream. Nothing in his record indicates that he has any definitive position on abortion, gay issues, quotas, or school prayer or judicial precedent related to those issues."
The problem with that response is that it concedes that the Democrat definition of "judicial mainstream" is correct, and that a judge who might not rule the way Chuck Schumer wants is some type of extremist. The Democrats control the gate separating us from the Supreme Court, even when the GOP controls the Senate. We never challenge their control of that gate. We try to sneak around the gate, which rarely works, as the presence of Souter, Kennedy, and Co. demonstrates.
The fact that 22 Democrats voted against Roberts as a replacement for Rehnquist demonstrates the level of arrogance and vitriol the Democrats hold on this issue. Can you imagine 22 Republicans voting against a leftist Democrat nominee who was merely replacing a retiring or deceased leftist? You couldn't get more than six Republicans to vote against a flaming leftist replacing Scalia. We play nice, you know.
The ball is now in the President's court. Either he'll show a willingness to fight, or he'll send us another cypher. I hope and pray it's the former.
You touch on two very important issues. First, the latter. Yes the property rights issue shoud be hammered down their throats. Why are all the good PR people Rats? We just don't deomogogue very well.
Second the abortion issue. It's still very big especially with soccer moms and their naughty daughters. Bush sidestepped the issue when he ran in 2000. He said something about changing people's hearts and avoided any pledge to change laws - this was enough to convince enough soccer moms who otherwise would have voted for Gore. Roberts did the same thing when he said Roe was settled law. The biggest fear out there is that a bunch of "crazed religious nuts" are going to pass a law outlawing abortion. And back in 2000, after the Senate caved on impeachment and the liberals made the whole issue about sex, a Republican hard-liner on abortion was never going to be elected.
I agree there are more important things out there but not to so many on both the left and the right.
I agree. I just hate all this bickering between Conservatives. We don't need this. It's not a battle that is wise to fight. Why? When there are so many other things out there that we need to fight for against the Liberals -- we need to stay toghether and no matter what kind of SCOTUS justice she may have made, I respect her her decision to step down for the good of the movement. Just my humble opinion.
I'll have a Long Island Iced tea.
I suspect you are correct.
"It was president Bush's fault that many opposed this nomination. The vitriol, the sheer viciousness of the opposition, however, was NOT his fault."
You're somewhat right. We don't know it was Bush himself. But whoever decided that the best way to control opposition was to insult it, like DU does its opposition, it was definitely their fault, this 'elitist, sexist,' crap that was spewed at the dissenters. That didn't work, either, as it only pissed off the base more and turned some actively against the President.
I could not see this woman on the Supreme Court.
Anything to the right of Miers will be labeled as "Extreme".
Well, the Conservatievs wanted this fight as well as the liberals.
Both groups got just what they asked for. Let the games begin.
It's already begun. This blood letting caused by those to the Right of W represents a spledid opportunity for the Dems to "finish him off" politically.
Don't know if they'll succeed, but they'll damn sure try!
I agree, opposing her was correct. I have a BIG problem with the way it was done by some. If everyone had voiced their opposition like Rush Limbaugh instead of like Ann Coulter, we would have had the same result, and EVERYONE could have been proud of it. It just feels like a hollow victory.
I'm from the south. Manners fall just below God and Country to me.
We (the far right wing) DO have a say in this process. The fact that Feinstein is troubled by that is just gravy.
Yes, the nomination has injured Bush, first because it revealed that he was unwilling to fight the Senate for a strong candidate and second because it failed.
But if he had not allowed the nomination to be withdrawn, he would have been injured a lot more, indeed would have rendered himself politically dead. And if by disastrous fortune Miers had been confirmed, by a plurality of RINOs and Democrats, he would have been even worse off, because she would have been making a spectacle of herself on the Court for the remaining three years of his term in office, keeping all of yesterday's resentments alive and growing.
I think it needs to be pointed out that he inflicted this injury on himself, by nominating someone who was barely vetted at all. It is obvious that no one in the White House had the faintest notion of what she had written and said in her years with the ABA. Now hopefully he can pull up his socks, as he has often done before, and go into battle for a really stellar candidate.
The fact is that this place is owned and run now by the one thought is the only thought police. People have left this place in droves from the attacks overwhelmingly from your side. This used to be a place where all opinions were welcome and respected even if they were wrong. Not anymore, march lockstep or face the rath of the "Conservatives".
If you support this President your not welcome at FR. I would rather fight the good fight and lose than turn my back on President George W Bush.
Pray for W and Our Troops
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.