Skip to comments.
Apocalypse now! (Bush to take over the judicial Process barf!)
Washington Times - Inside Politics ^
| 1-8-2003
| John McCaslin
Posted on 01/08/2003 2:25:16 PM PST by vannrox
Edited on 07/12/2004 4:00:14 PM PDT by Jim Robinson.
[history]
"The Day of Judgment is at hand," the Wall Street Journal says.
"We know this not because we've seen a vision but because the Prophet Ralph Neas told us so, in a mass e-mailing to journalists" Monday, the newspaper said in an editorial.
(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...
TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Editorial; Government; News/Current Events; Philosophy; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: bill; block; communist; constitution; evil; hate; judge; law; liberal; president; right; supreme
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-48 next last
Liberals are nothing more than communists with an agressive agenda.
1
posted on
01/08/2003 2:25:17 PM PST
by
vannrox
To: vannrox
I would characterize liberals as more of a satanic cult.
To: vannrox
he foretells that all 13 federal courts of appeals could fall under the 'ideological domination of the far right wing of American legal thought'No, that would be mainstream, constitutional thought. These people are so out of touch with America's heritage that their viewpoints are not only wrong, they are dangerous.
3
posted on
01/08/2003 2:31:28 PM PST
by
My2Cents
To: Paul Atreides
That was my initial thought: They take after their father, the Father of Lies.
4
posted on
01/08/2003 2:32:10 PM PST
by
My2Cents
To: vannrox
Shumer and others are on C-SPAM radio now vilifying Judge Pickering and anyone who would consider him worthy to be seated in the Circuit Court.
They must have gotten their orders from this Neas character and called an immediate press conference.
5
posted on
01/08/2003 2:33:30 PM PST
by
maica
(In God we trust)
To: vannrox
yes it will be horrible to have judges who uphold the constitution, instead of planting new meaning in it... just awful...
(/sarcasm off for the humor impaired)
6
posted on
01/08/2003 2:33:55 PM PST
by
Mr. K
To: Paul Atreides
There is some basis for their concern, because conservatives eat children for dinner and like to run down little old ladies crossing the street (using their gas-guzzling SUVs, of course).
To: vannrox
Hopefully we will no longer have some conservatives complaining that Bush will appoint a bunch of liberal justices or he's no different from Gore, but we probably will.
8
posted on
01/08/2003 2:35:46 PM PST
by
lasereye
To: vannrox
Go suck an egg Ralphie.
The American people handed the White House to us and gave us the Senate TWICE.
That's a mandate to implement our agenda and all the name calling in the world won't change it. We're gonna conservatize the SC while you conrflakes are left outside, with your little noses pressed against the window..
9
posted on
01/08/2003 2:36:15 PM PST
by
Jhoffa_
To: vannrox
'The Approaching Armageddon on Judicial Nominations'... "These yet-to-be-named justices will 'turn back the clock'... Americans may 'wake up one morning ...and discover that overnight they have lost fundamental rights, liberties, and protections that they thought were theirs forever.' Let me put it another way:
THE SKY IS FALLING!..... THE SKY IS FALLING!!! THE SKY IS FALLING!!!!
This coming Congressional session is going to be so much fun. I am begining to feel like Nov. '02 was just the begining.
To: vannrox
"These yet-to-be-named justices will 'turn back the clock' on decades of 'legal and social gains,' Mr. Neas prophesies. Americans may 'wake up one morning in 2004 or in 2005 and discover that overnight they have lost fundamental rights, liberties, and protections that they thought were theirs forever.' The two Anti-Christs already on the bench, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, will prevail. Im not so optimistic. I will never see anything like a 1950's society in my lifetime.
11
posted on
01/08/2003 2:37:31 PM PST
by
weikel
(chairman of the vast right wing conspiracy and swedish bikini inspector)
To: vannrox
Barf Alert!
12
posted on
01/08/2003 2:38:34 PM PST
by
Rodney King
(No, we can't all just get along.)
To: maica
Shumer and others are on C-SPAM radio now vilifying Judge Pickering Who cares what they say? Mow 'em down. They had two years to make all these points, which they did... many times. The public heard; the public reacted. The public took control of the Senate away from the Democrats. No matter what they say, no matter how much they stall, filibuster, and obstruct, they cannot win this. They can only make themselves out to be whiny losers who didn't get the message the first time. Next time they get booted below 40 seats if they keep this up. |
To: Paul Atreides
We are witnessing Hillarys,(yes Hillarys), full court press. They still dont get it, though. The libs and left still havent grasped the repercussions from the midterms. The disconnect from the people is something the left and dems dont see.
To: lasereye
Hopefully we will no longer have some conservatives complaining that Bush will appoint a bunch of liberal justices " I must admit that I am very much surprised that he renominated Pickering. I thought for sure he would not have the balls to do this. Honestly, I was disappointed that he did not support Pickering stronger by making him a recess appointment.
This news has lifted my hopes, a bit, that his plodding consistancy will proove to be the right strategy.
To: Jhoffa_
Ralph Neas is a nitwit who feeds all the Dem. Senators
any dirt he can find on any nominee by Pres. Bush. Just
remember when Blacks knock the Republicans that only one Senator ever voted twice to keep a Black Judge off the
Supreme Court...Thurgood Marshal and Clarence Thomas....
...SENATOR ROBERT BYRD.....He is your sneaky Demrat..Jake
To: cardinal4
I was thinking today how pathetic it is the way the Dims slavishly give that woman more and more power. She only has support in three cities: NY, LA, and D.C. And, her endorsements doomed the candidates.
To: Nick Danger
I don't think the public will care one way or the other if Pickering is confirmed, so it's probably safe for the Dems to vote against him. If they vilify him enough, a few weak in the knees Pubbies might go along like with Bork.
18
posted on
01/08/2003 2:48:56 PM PST
by
lasereye
To: Paul Atreides
Just because she cant garner enough votes to win a Presidential Election doesnt mean she wont win. If she runs, look for this to be settled in court. She will stop at nothing to return to the White House. This woman is to be feared.
To: sanjacjake
The message the demoncRATs got was that they weren't shrill enough, they hadn't attacked and demonized enough. not they're coming out in full(er) force. hopefully their arrogance will not sit well with the public again and Zell Miller just read the tea leaves and realized with their ever shriller approach Bush will be eating more toast and handing out more crow in 2004
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-48 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson