GACK!
Just how does a face get that pinched?
Posted on 04/28/2008 7:15:07 AM PDT by Aristotelian
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court has ruled that states can require voters to produce photo identification without violating their constitutional rights. The decision validates Republican-inspired voter ID laws.
The court vote 6-3 to uphold Indiana's strict photo ID requirement. Democrats and civil rights groups say the law would deter poor, older and minority voters from casting ballots.
(Excerpt) Read more at ap.google.com ...
Actually, it’s not lame, and I’m not whining about anything. I’m simply saying that W is not going to get any kudos from me for both judges.
He was well aware beforehand what the people expected and desired from him as regards judicial nominations. He knew very well one reason many of us voted for him was to, in his Constitutional duties as President, nominate constructionist jurists to the court. It was not, in any way shape or form, a surprise to him that we expected a better jurist than Harriet Miers.
So, one of the primary reasons he was elected (and he knew this) was to appoint jurists such as this. The fact that he did not was a poke in the eye (as he also knew) of the respective electorate.
He is entitled to no credit for appointing a jurist simply silence the huge sh*t storm stirred up by the Miers appointment.
See if you can follow this train of thought. When we elect people and they know in advance why they are being elected, AND they lead the electorate to expect that they will do what they were elected to do (and then don’t do it), then you may see that W deserves squat in admiration for Alito.
That ain’t whining. It is a logical train of thought. We have a representative form of government and it’s not whining to expect representation.
Bush shouldn't get credit for having been forced to do what should have happened on the first time out of the gate.
I'm not "anti Bush" but don't give the guy credit for what he didn't intend to do.
I think they photoshopped out the toothpicks they used to prop her eyelids open for that picture...
Your train of thought leaves out two important pieces of information. First that President Bush's judicial nominations have been sterling across the board, and second that he is entitled to his own opinion. No president is an automaton. Obviously, President Bush felt that Harriet Miers would be a good candidate, or else, based on his otherwise fine record of judicial nominations, he would not have nominated her.
We have a representative form of government and it’s not whining to expect representation.
It is whining to continually bitch about a battle you already won over three years ago. It is whining to think that "representation" means you expect the person who represents you to not use his or her own judgement. It's why we elect representatives in the first place -- because we can't be there in person to exercise our own individual judgements. It is whining to continue to excoriate a representative who makes an initial decision, then changes course in response to the will of the people.
Excuse me?! Before you excoriate others for their facts, you might want to check your own.
Now Chief Justice Roberts was the first and only nominee to replace the deceased Chief Justice Rehnquist. In fact, Roberts was in the nomination process to fill the Sandra Day O'Connor vacancy when Rehnquist died on Saturday, September 3, 2005. President Bush then nominated Roberts to be Chief Justice, so he still needed a replacement for the retiring O'Connor.
Harriet Miers was, indeed, President Bush's first choice to replace O'Connor. When her nomination failed, he could easily have nominated someone more moderate, but he listened to conservatives calling for one of their own to be nominated. Hence Justice Alito.
Uh, San Francisco is in Northern California.
GACK!
Just how does a face get that pinched?
...and more felons...and more dead people...and more illegal aliens...
Apologies...
Well, I have not been continuously bitching about a battle won three years ago. I am desputing the notion that W deserves a big Atta Boy for his second choice. Which, BTW, was a good choice, but made under duress nonetheless - my point after all.
Also, I am not continuing to excoriate him for his decision. The subject was introduced into the conversation, making it entirely appropriate to respond. My opinion of his action shouldn’t have to change simply because three years have passed.
As far as his judicial nominations are concerned, my opinion regarding Harriet Miers is a separate issue. I did not say he deserves no credit for any other nominations. I simply said, and I stand by it, that he was forced to change and thus should not get the kind of credit that one gets for doing it on his own initiative. That’s all. No more, no less.
Thanks for acknowledging that my point is correct. However, the nomination of Harriet Miers was not a "fiasco." It was simply the President exercising his own opinion re his Constitutional nominating powers. When the nomination failed, he could have nominated someone similar to her. Instead, he nominated the staunchly conservative Sam Alito.
By the way, Chief Justice Roberts was confirmed on September 29, 2005, and was sworn in three hours later. Justice Samuel Alito was nominated to replace Sandra Day O'Connor on October 31, 2005, a month after Roberts was sworn in.
Apparently many conservatives think the President is not entitled to his own opinions. They apparently also are immensely uncharitable and rigidly unforgiving even after they wage a winning political battle.
Harriet Miers is a very good human being, a life-long Republican who has led a sterling life filled with achievement. Simply because she was deemed by conservatives to be unsuitable for the Supreme Court does not qualify her to be continually seen as an ogre by conservatives in perpetuity. Similarly, conservatives ultimately got two youthful, exceptional justices in Roberts and Alito, and yet they still bitch and whine years later simply because they had to fight a political battle to replace Ms. Miers as the nominee. This trait many conservatives share is an ugly one, and one that I wholeheartedly repudiate.
The President was not forced to do anything. He responded to the conservative outcry. It's called politics. He could just have easily gotten pissed after Miers failed and nominated someone more centrist, or even did what his father did with the Souter nomination. But GWB didn't do that. Instead, he chose to nominate a solid in-your-face conservative.
So tell me -- do you ever change your mind? Does your boss ever say he doesn't like they way you did something, and do you redo it in a different way in response? Do your kids ever do something you don't like, and do they modify their behavior in response to your parental guidance? In all of those situations, and the many others like them we all face in our lives, is there anyone in your life who is so uncharitable, so rigid and unforgiving that they refuse to acknowledge the good you did simply because they believe you made an initial mistake?
Uh no, it will deter dishonest people from casting ballots. The fact that many Democrats are dishonest and prone to cheat is immaterial. Case closed.
You are finding a fault in my opinion that I don't think is there in the first place. I'm not being unforgiving, nor am I refusing to acknowledge a good (albeit second) choice.
My point is simple, there is no deep meaning, resentment or anything of that nature in it. One gets more credit if one does it right the first time rather than after being chastised and berated into it later.
I'm glad he was flexible and chose Alito, and I'll credit him for doing so. But I'm not going to sing hosannas because of it.
Remember Patsy Schroeder? Always looked as if she had just been sucking on a giant lemon, like it was painful to have a relaxed smile.
Good job Wolfstar. Nothing like a good dose of common sense and a few facts to clear things up.
Yes, I remember her. EW.
I can’t figure out pinched faces. It has to be so much work to keep them up. And WHY?
Thanks. :)
In my mind's eye, I always figured she had a corncob up her rear end and that expression was the result of trying not to let it show. And metaphorically, I think that is probably fairly accurate.
Ping!
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.