Free Republic

It's official: Buchanan has completely lost his mind.

Read an article I found in search, last nite, mentioned several marriages prior, so I would say, no to gay!

Do you remember where you found that Horowitz was married several times before?

On Miers' side to date: Ken Starr, Lino Gralia, Thomas Sowell, James Dobson, Jay Sekulow, Marvin Olasky, Chuck Colson, Michael Medved, William Rusher, R. Emmett Tyrrell and of course Fred Barnes.

Against her: The Corner, Tucker Carlson, Bill Kristol, Robert Bork, Mark Levin, George Will, Ann Coulter, Laura Ingraham, Michael Savage, and Charles Krauthhammer.

Quite frankly I would rather be in Miers' size 6 shoes.

You forgot a few:

For Miers &/or defending her: Harry Reid, Arlen Specter, & Barbara Mikulski.

Against or in serious doubt: Rush Limbaugh, David Limbaugh, Pat Buchanan, Alan Keyes, GWB speechwriter David Frum, Phyllis Schlafly, Ben Shapiro, Michelle Malkin, Terence Jeffrey, Tony Blankley, Peggy Noonan, Sam Brownback, Bob Novak, & Linda Chavez. Even Jonah Goldberg has reservations about the Miers pick.

I have no opinion on Miers, b/c she's just too much of an unknown quantity. But in her column, Coulter did address at least one substantive point of Lifson's piece which he, in turn, didn't address.

Third and finally, some jobs are so dirty, you can only send in someone who has the finely honed hatred of liberals acquired at elite universities to do them. The devil is an abstraction for normal, decent Americans living in the red states. By contrast, at the top universities, you come face to face with the devil every day, and you learn all his little tropes and tricks.

Conservatives from elite schools have already been subjected to liberal blandishments and haven't blinked. These are right-wingers who have fought off the best and the brightest the blue states have to offer. The New York Times isn't going to mau-mau them — as it does intellectual lightweights like Jim Jeffords and Lincoln Chafee — by dangling fawning profiles before them. They aren't waiting for a pat on the head from Nina Totenberg or Linda Greenhouse. To paraphrase Archie Bunker, when you find a conservative from an elite law school, you've really got something.

Her argument wasn't all based on his grammar.

A novel way to whittle away at the “non-profit” scam is to put in the Internal Revenue Code that as a condition for tax-exempt status, all paid employees of such 501(c)(3) tax-exempt corporations have to submit to mandatory random drug testing (including, and especially marijuana). You will see the likes of such groups as the ACLU, Greenpeace, Sierra Club, PETA, etc, etc., ad nauseum, fold like a cheap tent.

LOL. Brilliant.

My pet peeve is the money & resources that go to the left via forced payments, like union dues & taxes. That's what I'd really like to get rid of. Even if were going to something I agreed w/, I still hate the idea of being forced to give my money to anything.

LOL. Perfect.

Thanks. I'll catch the repeat.

Good point. I've been wondering how they keep getting funding when clearly nobody's listening.

LOL. I imagine this was taken from the closed-captioning during the show. The closed-captioning on FNC has been getting a lot worse lately.

I'm sure she'll be shattered by your disapproval.

BaBaStooey, good point about Dred Scott.

My favorite quote in this H&C appearance wasn't the Kennedy/Chappaquick line, but this one: "Karl Rove wants people to see the Republican Party as the party of corporate America and country clubs."

It's so true.

For anyone who missed the H&C ep, the first half of it's currently on FNC's site in their videos section.

Must remember the rules.

These are from the H&C 7/27 ep. The lighting was terrible-I've had to touch them up.

Here's Hannity after she said the Chappaquidick line. He looked amused, but uncomfortable.

Btw, Ann's been working on her latest book for the past 2 or 3 months. That's why she wasn't doing as many media appearances until the Roberts nomination came up.

Does anyone know of a good software to use to extract & edit this interview from the DVD I have it on? Preferably a trial download.

Although I'm not a 'strict' constructionist, Wikipedia has a definition of SC that covers the basics: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_constructionism

You'll see on that page that Scalia refers to 'reasonable' constructionism or 'originalism'. That is what I agree w/. The easiest example of this for me is saying that the word 'speech' should be interpreted as 'speech', not as 'expression'. 'Speech' is an objectively definable word which simply refers to written or spoken words. 'Expression' is purely subjective. It can include all of the following & more: a book, a song, burning a flag, streaking, flipping someone the bird, etc.

I think the criteria on which a judicial decision is based should always first be the actual wording of the constitution & the founders commonly known original intent in choosing those particular words. Not the 'precedent'-based daisy-chain-to-dictatorship the courts have been following for decades.

It's late & I'm about to go to sleep, so I hope this makes sense. :)

Hopefully, the talk shows will be going over his record w/a fine tooth comb over the next few weeks. Also, hopefully, they'll make the distinction between his govt job vs his private sector work, & especially what opinions he's been credibly quoted as saying outside of work.

I'd have less of a problem w/him being a non-constructionist in this one area (& constructionism is what I'm concerned about, not conservatism) if I knew that he was a constructionist in other important areas. As of now, I've seen no evidence that leads me to believe that.

To try to equate a lawyers personal views to what cases is an exercise in futility. It is like asking a skunk not to stink. Lawyers take cases and advocate for clients.

And the kind I like are the ones who don't take cases that pit them directly against private property rights.

I guess for me, the biggest problem w/having to pick a Supreme Court Justice is that that person has to have been a (cough) lawyer.

re:TRPA case

You do realize he was only arguing the case for a client? Hell Ted Olsen was defendeing Matt Cooper last week.

The question for me is: do the cases he handled for Reagan/Bush reflect his views? Or is the TRPA case a better representation of his views? On the surface, I'd think that TRPA would come closer to representing his views, b/c he probably had some choice about taking that case. I assume the govt cases were probably just assigned to him. Does anyone know if that's a correct assumption on my part?

On the show that aired before the press conference, Kristol generally approved of him. However, Barnes said he would have preferred someone stronger (I forget his actual wording). Mort's response to Barnes' mild displeasure w/this nominee was to say that Fred wanted a judge who was a 'conservative activist'. Barnes, of course, said that wasn't true.

Souter was an aberration ... a stupid choice made on the recommendation of one or two New Hampshire RINO hacks.

Roberts is much more widely known, and everyone who knows him says he is conservative.

Ed Meese knows and likes him, for instance, and Meese was one of the leaders in the opposition to Gonzales. Levin, Hewitt, and all the folks at National Review give him enthusiastic thumbs up.

I don't know that he's another Scalia, but I wouldn't rule out the possibility.

I sincerely hope he is genuinely a constructionist. I just hope the people who are praising him aren't doing so on the basis of his writings in cases while he was working for Reagan/Bush. As he himself has said, those aren't necessarily his views. There are public defenders all over the nation who work their tails off to prevent the conviction of someone that they believe is guilty. But they do it simply because it's their job to do it. Roberts' work in cases where his client was the US govt could have been for the same reason-it was simply a job. I hope not.

Oh, BTW, will be appeased so long as the nominees keep being originalist. THEN AND ONLY THEN WILL BE APPEASED.

But, we might be more appeased, if Bush and the Republicans actually did something to secure the borders and stopped spending money at a faster rate than any administration since the Johnson administration. And, we might be more appeased if we don't see any more incremental versions of the Hillary's health care plan like the Medicare prescription drug plan.

I'm tired of saying AMEN, so I'll say BRAVO.

AMEN again