Posted on 03/27/2002 7:10:33 AM PST by PeteF
Better that the courts kill this law for good.
We've put up with the abomination known as Roe v. Wade for nearly 30 years. It will take at LEAST that long, if not longer, for opponents to attack political speech after we win this fight.
Do we defend this and secure the Constitution for three or four years, or do we go for a win that lasts three or four decades or longer?
Yep ol larr must have slipped some not to be at the court house this morning to file his request.... But he will as he needs to get more donations so he can give himself another raise.... You know $250,000+ a year is pittance for the most important job he has.... You know Vern... like hosting the "clean up crusies", flying over to the Hague to file a suit against Fidel, and most importantly filing all those FOIA...
It most certainly is. See "Oath of Office."
Yep, ought to make it easier for you to get your candidate nominated next go round.... "makes sense" to me.
Ah, yes. It is always the seasoned political insider like you who needs to impugn those who disagree with him. Yes, please prattle on and illuminate we poor dim-witted lot who are unwilling to suck down every lemon that the Republican leadership throws our way.
You dont dont control the Senate with 51 votes. You cant get permission to sneeze in the Senate without 60 votes. Any single member can hold up any bill or any appointment unless you can get sixty senators to vote with you on stopping the filbuster.
My point EXACTLY, oh wise and erudite senior Freeper member. My point is all this talk about our gains in the fall are bogus! We need to make major gains in seats to accomplish all the good that supporters of this bad legislation say we will reap. It is not going to happen.
The same thing is true to a lesser extent in the House. Gingrich had much more fun and success as being the minority guy that got to throw a wrench into the works and prevent legislation from passing. A tough minority can stop legislation but a numerical majority doesnt ensure its passage.
Who is the political newbie? You sound just like Trent Lot. Hey everybody, it's a good thing we lost control of the Senate! Yipee! It's great!
And speaking of Gingrich, how did he ride to power? On an agenda, not be riding the wave of non-comittal ideology. He spelled out a vision and laid it out as an option to voters. Bush is NOT doing that. His only vision appears to be running the war.
Being in the majority did help from the standpoint of chairing the various committes giving you some discretion on when to schedule meetings, etc. But that was lost with Jeffords betrayal.
Granted for the Senate. But my point still stands. You need to have people in those seats that support your agenda or you will have a reenactment of the Jeffords mess. When you're counting on the support of RINOs in the Senate, you being delusional.
I expected the lawsuit to be immediate. It was.
I expect the Supreme Court to take this up and rule it unconstitutional before it can actually do any real damage. They will.
The only thing here that has my interest is how the Supreme Court will rule. Will the Liberal Judges all file dissenting opinions, thereby voting for the dismantling of the US Constitution? I wouldn't put it past them.
Take it easy everybody.
Eddie01
Ahhh...only if this has not estranged conservatives to stop donating money to the GOP.
Just last week, I was walking on the Upper West Side (Moscow on the Hudson), and wearing my one that says "Charleton Heston is MY President." I must have gotten a dirty look from every third person on the sidewalk. (The other two out of three didn't notice or I'm sure they would have done the same.)
It isn't unusual for a stranger to make an occasional nasty comment and without missing a beat my first reply is, "Counting on the police to make it in time to save you when some rapist or murderer is breaking into your house is like calling Dial-a-Prayer." If they persist with the issue, so do I.
God bless the NRA and our pro-second amendment groups.
Meanwhile, because NJ is so anti-gun, I am going on Month Four in my wait for my gun ownership permit.
Sure they will as will the GOP. I don't think the GOP has declared themselves out of the game at all.....
Hey..look up. There is a black helicopter over your head.
Let me tell you why President Dubya signed "this piece of dung." One reason and one reason only - SIGNING IT FOREVER REMOVES THE ISSUE FROM THE DEMS. The Dems gave up the issue in return for a bill. Although they have preferred having the issue for years, this year, they made the strategic blunder to trade that issue for a flawed bill.
What will now happen, which would NOT had Bush vetoed it, is that the courts will declare it unconstitutional. Net result - the DEMS will have lost BOTH the bill AND THE ISSUE.
That's why he signed it. He avoids the media whitewash, which was sure to have been massive (since they haven't gotten anything to stick to him in 9 months), and he defeats the Dems by taking the issue away from them and exiling it to the trash heap. Damn fine West Texas strategery, if'n ya ask me.
Any time you can surgically remove an issue from the Dems, it IS a victory.
Michael
The liberal controlled courts will not quickly throw this out. The severability issue is a clear attempt by Congress to limit Judicial Branch powers. I have a strong feeling that more than a few Supreme Court Justices are preparing to send Congress a clear message, DON'T TRY TO USURP JUDICIAL BRANCH POWERS BY LEGISLATING WHAT THE SUPREME COURT CAN OR CANNOT DO WHEN DECIDING THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF LAWS ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH.
Will the lawsuits challenge the whole bill or just the offensive parts?
Is the Solicitor General required to defend every element of the bill in question with equal zeal?
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.