Free Republic 2nd Qtr 2023 Fundraising Target: $77,000 Receipts & Pledges to-date: $48,079
Woo hoo!! And we're now over 62%!! Thank you all very much!! God bless.

Posts by Cboldt

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • Alito It Is (Or So It Seems)

    10/28/2005 10:14:00 AM PDT · 148 of 255
    Cboldt to Owen
    Defeat, and loss of the Senate, is a nominee very much rightward of O'Connor who is rejected and generates a DNC fundraising party of unprecedented proportions.

    I disagree with your point of view.

  • Libby indicted on obstruction of justice, false statement and perjury charge - RESIGNS

    10/28/2005 9:52:01 AM PDT · 61 of 751
    Unintended consequence - WH shuts door on converstations with reporters

    P.S. Libby could have learned Plame function/ID from Cheney -AND- from reporters

    Will be interesting to see his defense play out. I'm surprised at the perjury count.

  • Cheney On Fox Now!!!(Breaking)

    10/28/2005 9:35:32 AM PDT · 70 of 101
    Cboldt to Phantom Lord
    Dick Cheney is going to resign. And now you know why Miers pulled her nomination. Bush is going to appoint her VP!


  • Alito It Is (Or So It Seems)

    10/28/2005 9:31:32 AM PDT · 125 of 255
    Cboldt to Owen
    This rejection of incremental victory on the part of FR is just bizarre.

    Are you advocating that the President nominate an O'Connor clone?

  • Alito It Is (Or So It Seems)

    10/28/2005 9:28:38 AM PDT · 119 of 255
    Cboldt to Gelato
    If appointed to the Supreme Court, would he follow a stare decisis view of Roe V. Wade and other unconstitutional rulings?

    A dissenting opinion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 947 F.2d 682 (3d Cir. 1991), arguing that a Pennsylvania that required women seeking abortions to inform their husbands should have been upheld. As Judge Alito reasoned, "[t]he Pennsylvania legislature could have rationally believed that some married women are initially inclined to obtain an abortion without their husbands' knowledge because of perceived problems--such as economic constraints, future plans, or the husbands' previously expressed opposition--that may be obviated by discussion prior to the abortion." Chief Justice Rehnquist's dissent from the Supreme Court's 6-3 decision striking down the spousal notification provision of the law quoted Judge Alito's dissent and expressed support for Judge Alito's reasoning.

  • Alito It Is (Or So It Seems)

    10/28/2005 9:25:28 AM PDT · 115 of 255
    Cboldt to Owen
    ... why would we be inclined to think we deserve a mandate?

    Are the DEMs on clear record as being in favor of judges that "legislate from the bench?" Do the DEMs want to strip the people of the power to decide social issues, and instead have judges decisde those issues? They do stand for that, bt haven't been forced to say so, in those terms.

    The DEMs have succeeded in making the judicial nominations a question of issues advocacy. For example, "The conservatives will take away your right to choose!" But in fact, stripping the abortion matter from the court gives "the right to choose" back to the people.

    With the argument properly framed, if there isn't a mandate, then we have forever lost the Republic of our founders.

  • Judith Miller - Matt Cooper Brief posted on Fitzgerald Website.

    10/28/2005 8:56:57 AM PDT · 24 of 27
    Cboldt to areafiftyone
    I'm at a loss here - I was hoping for a Freeper who is a lawyer or is familiar with law to translate for me. BEG BEG BEG!

    It's the government's argument why Miller and Cooper should be compelled to testify. That case was settled in the government's favor.


    10/28/2005 8:51:28 AM PDT · 3,320 of 3,436
    Cboldt to DC Ripper
    Did Dr. Dobson make a statement lately that reflected a change of heart?

    Focus on the Family Action - October 27, 2005

    Colorado Springs, Colo. -- Focus on the Family Action founder and chairman Dr. James C. Dobson issued the following statement today in response to Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers' decision to withdraw her name from consideration:

    "I believe the president has made a wise decision in accepting Harriet Miers' withdrawal as a nominee to the Supreme Court.

    "In recent days I have grown increasingly concerned about her conservative credentials, and I was dismayed to learn this week about her speech in 1993, in which she sounded pro-abortion themes, and expressed so much praise for left-wing feminist leaders.

    "When the president announced this nominee, I expressed my tentative support, based on what I was able to discover about her. But I also said I would await the hearings to learn more about her judicial philosophy. Based on what we now know about Miss Miers, it appears that we would not have been able to support her candidacy. Thankfully, that difficult evaluation is no longer necessary."


    10/28/2005 7:41:20 AM PDT · 3,312 of 3,436
    Cboldt to ohioWfan
    Can you give me the origin and nature of the SC blog (who are Goldstein and Howe?), and who is writing the analysis of her there?

    That information I do not have.


    10/28/2005 7:25:01 AM PDT · 3,307 of 3,436
    Cboldt to ohioWfan
    I have heard that JRB is pro-choice (only recently). Do you know if that's true?

    As I've asserted on numerous occasions, a person's PERSONAL attitude toward an issue is not a good indicator of how that person would rule, if in the position of being a judge of the facts and the law.

    In this particular decision, Brown came down on the pro-life side of the issue. Her side lost.

    In American Academy of Pediatrics v. Lungren, 16 Cal.4th 307 (1997), the majority struck down on state constitutional grounds a statute requiring pregnant minors to secure parental consent or judicial authorization before obtaining an abortion.

    In a lengthy dissent, Brown castigates the court for acting as a super-legislature. She states early in her dissent, "The fundamental flaw running throughout [the majority's] analysis is the utter lack of deference to the ordinary constraints of judicial decisionmaking--deference to state precedent, to federal precedent, to the collective judgment of our Legislature, and, ultimately, to the people we serve."

    She is particularly dismayed by the court's lack of deference when, as here, the standards dictated by state, federal, and legislative precedent are clearly derived from history, context, and text. With regard to the statute itself, it is notable that Brown (1) finds the statute's age limitation not unreasonable, and (2) acknowledges a liberty interest in parents' controlling their children that is "historically more sacrosanct than a minor's right to privacy."

    Lots more good stuff at that link, not all of it about Brown, but much of it including cites to other cases where Brown rendered an opinion.

    Here is the ACLU take on the case ...

    Keep in mind, the ACLU is talking about the majority in the case, and Brown dissented against the majority opinion.

  • No More Stealth Picks (Stealth Nominees "Do Injustice to the Conservative Cause." PREACH It, Mona!)

    10/28/2005 7:04:47 AM PDT · 48 of 62
    Cboldt to Mike Darancette
    I hope the Uber-Cons know of a way to get the spineless Senators to support an open Conservative candidate. If a JRB is nominated and rejected by the Senate the Uber-Cons will really have egg on their face.

    The spineless Senators are a disservice to the conservative cause, and can only be exposed by forcing them to take a position.

    The conservative-liberal war will not be won in a single battle, but conservatives WILL lose the war if they avoid the battles.

    I think the GOP has egg on its face now, for adopting a go-along/get-along approach with its sworn enemies in the DEM/liberal movement.


    10/28/2005 6:38:19 AM PDT · 3,303 of 3,436
    Cboldt to Theodore R.
    Speaking of Gonzales, do you see him as the next nominee?

    I honestly don't know. I see two primary camps in that prediction department.

    One camp predicts that Gonzales will be a pick, nominally because the pick will energize Hispanic voters, and perhaps because Bush rewards loyalty (another crony pick), or because Bush wants to stick a needle in the eye of the uber-right-wing conservatives who objected to the Miers nomination, since he knows these same people object to Gonzales on the frounds that GOnzales has demonstrated judicial activism (see TX parental notification cases).

    The other camp predicts that Bush will avoid a Gonzales pick, for the same reasons noted above. That he is not vindictive, and that he intends to honor his campaing promise to nominate strict constructionists, where "strict constructionist" can be fleshed out with the benchmark examples of Thomas and Scalia.

  • Conservatives Will Regret the Miers Withdrawal

    10/28/2005 6:32:13 AM PDT · 140 of 378
    Cboldt to Cold Heat
    I'm not going to lecture you, but I will point out that your vitriole will not attract or energize voters.

    LOL! Pot Kettle stuff!

    I've admitted that I am no choir boy, and I willingly admit it yet again.

    Your vitriol was directed at the President, the Senate and the nominee and everyone who tried to stand in the way of it.

    By complaints go in those directions, yes. But for the most part, my complaints have avoided personal attacks, and I can't recall EVER, not one time, making a personal attack except in defense of myself.

    You don't even know what you have wrought, despite many trying to tell you.

    None of us has a crystal ball. I defer to the professional pollsters, etc. for their prognostication. I personally think there is a big upside to having the GOP openly advocate for strict constructionist judges, even if the battle is lost on any given nominee. I think the conservative cause benefits more when the conservative message is in the open, than when the conservative message is kept under wraps for whatever reason.

    You will understand it by 08. You had better believe it. This is it, no more patience. This coalition is broken irrepairably this time. That is that....We have had enough.

    Okay. Bye.

  • Conservatives Will Regret the Miers Withdrawal

    10/28/2005 6:24:15 AM PDT · 133 of 378
    Cboldt to Cold Heat
    Those were pressure courtesy calls. Those requests must be submitted in writing, and they never got that far.

    Q17. Constitutional Issues

    In answer to question 17, you explained that as Counsel to the President you are regularly faced with issues involving constitutional questions, but gave us no specifics about the issues themselves, or the work that you personally did. Please provide the Committee with details concerning the specific matters you handled, the constitutional issues presented in those matters, and the positions you took related to those issues. This question was designed to help the Committee learn more about your experience with constitutional law, and if most of it was gained during your years in the White House, it is important that we know more about the specifics of that experience. ...

    Q22. Potential Conflicts of Interest

    Please be more specific in your answer to this question by telling the Committee any categories of cases from which you plan to recuse yourself, and by addressing in particular the problem of recusal as it relates to the litigation of cases arising out of matters on which you worked at the White House, or as a lawyer for President Bush in his personal capacity, or in service to his various campaigns. We are aware of the statutes and codes that generally govern these matters, but recusal decisions of Supreme Court Justices are more complicated because they are not subject to further review. The Committee would like you to address the issues specific to your situation.

    The difference between the very real public call for documents, made to the WH via the press, and the formal recapitulation, isn't material to the debate.

    It flies in the face of fact to argue that no GOP Senator, and no DEM Senator was requesting internal documents. The pressure was there, regardless of the presence of an objectionable written request.

  • Conservatives Will Regret the Miers Withdrawal

    10/28/2005 6:06:32 AM PDT · 118 of 378
    Cboldt to Cold Heat
    Now I get lectured for being some sort of RINO or lousy moderate who is not conservative enough to please you!

    I'm not going to lecture you, but I will point out that your vitriole will not attract or energize voters.

    If the party is to win, the burden is on the party to attract and energize voters. It's not the competition's fault when the GOP loses.

  • Conservatives Will Regret the Miers Withdrawal

    10/28/2005 6:03:54 AM PDT · 114 of 378
    Cboldt to Cold Heat
    Big mistake! New precedents, all the arguments we used before, like a "up or down vote" are all gone now! All credibility gone.

    Stop being a defeatist, and put on your history cap and thinking cap.

  • Conservatives Will Regret the Miers Withdrawal

    10/28/2005 6:02:07 AM PDT · 112 of 378
    Cboldt to Cold Heat
    The requests for docs that were mentioned had not yet been made ...

    Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) are calling for the White House to turn over internal documents related to Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers's service as White House counsel, breaking with Republican colleagues who say the boundaries of executive privilege must not be pushed.

    Perhaps anticipating Republican demands for internal memos, White House staff members yesterday told Senate GOP staffers that the White House will provide evidence illuminating Miers's legal thinking in action.

    Both lawmakers are members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which will begin confirmation hearings for Miers the week of Nov. 7.

    Graham's and Brownback's push for greater disclosure will give Democrats political leverage should they ask for memos and other documents shedding light on Miers's work within the Bush administration's inner circle. It would take only two Republicans to defeat Miers in committee, although that would not prevent the nomination's automatic discharge to a floor vote.

  • Conservatives Will Regret the Miers Withdrawal

    10/28/2005 5:59:24 AM PDT · 108 of 378
    Cboldt to Iowa Granny
    How do we plead rightous indignation when the Dems start pounding the next nominee with questions?

    We don't! That's the point! We need to defect issues advocacy questions and make them into "I advocate no particular position on the issue, and believe that under the Constitution, the people should decide the issue, not the Courts."

  • Conservatives Will Regret the Miers Withdrawal

    10/28/2005 5:54:54 AM PDT · 104 of 378
    Cboldt to loveliberty2
    Ends do not justify means, and their previous claims that the President's nominee "deserved" the right to a vote will come back to haunt them.

    Lots of GOP here defended that the ends (getting "our" nominee on the bench) justified the means, where the means was to advance a nominee with no discernable philosophy.

    I submit that government by stealth is inherently bad for the people, that stealth is a dishonest technique, used by power brokers to avoid confrontation, accountability, or otherwise distract the people from the issue that is really at ahnd, which is limiting the power of the Courts, and returning social decisions to the people.

    As for the proposition that hearings weren't held, she wasn't given an opportunity to be heard, etc., those complaints demonstrate a shallow and superficial understanding of the political process. Sure, she pulled herself or was pulled in reaction to political pressure. Well, that is the President's prerogative. And he can choose to listen to, or ignore "the voices from outside the WH." But just Ms. Miers was his pick, withdrawing her nomination is also his pick. The process worked fine. There is plenty of historical precedent for nominations to be withdrawn, at various stages in the nominate-confirm-appoint process.

    To hold the Miers case (pulled because of wrong-headed objection) out as an aberration is to adopt a DEM tactical argument, aimed again at distracting debate from the core issues at hand.

    To the rest of your post - Author! Author! - well said!

  • Conservatives Will Regret the Miers Withdrawal

    10/28/2005 5:42:33 AM PDT · 95 of 378
    Cboldt to dawn53
    I guess it's okay for the conservatives to have a litmus test, even though they demand the Dems don't.

    The litmus test of conservatives is "struict constructionism," or "follow the separation of pwoers laid out in the Constitution."

    Do you have a problem with that litmus test?