Skip to comments.Who Elected President Bush (And Supports His Choice For Scotus)?
Posted on 10/11/2005 4:19:08 PM PDT by shrinkermd
click here to read article
Everyone complains about the gang of 14, who actually asserted their will completely within the rules. Instead of whining about it, tip your hat to their political skill, and do something to counteract it.
The GOP Senate won't do it, and I'm sorry, but it sure looks like the president won't either. And all of a sudden, here comes this unified, loud voice of the judicial conservatives asserting themselves, and possibly even applying as much pressure from OUR side as the gang of 14 did from theirs. In short, the people, the ones who care, are actually rising up, being heard, and potentially deflecting a bad nominee.
At which point I guess you'll say she's not a bad nominee, or we should wait and see. OK, fine, we should wait and see. But I LOVE LOVE LOVE the idea of the hearings being held with not ONLY the gang of 14 applying pressure from the mushy moderate side, but the right, represented by the people themselves (can I get a huzzah??), applying pressure on the GOP from the RIGHT. It's a beautiful thing.
I was pessimistic when I thought that this nominee going down would result in a worse nominee. It doesn't have to be that way. But the more I learn, the more I think this one has got to go. Sorry. I'll watch the hearings, and I truly would love, if she does get confirmed, to have egg all over my face come next July when opinions start to roll out. I hope I have a Western Omellette with cheese on my face if that day comes. No lie.
My new mission is to try to respect and promote respect among my judicially conservative brethren. We may disagree, but we want the same thing. My other mission is to post something in 100 words or less.
I guess you forgot Rush Limbaugh's article "A choice made from weakness" and his home state of Florida
I'm an average joe, too. I don't get a say? What's wrong with this average joe having a say? The elitism thing is simply a pathetic grasp at straws.
Why are you struggling with this? Of course people harbor agendas. That's just another way of saying they have substantive goals they are willing to fight for. The agenda you harbor seems to be loyalty to GWB. You're the one who's being sanctimonious. Look at you judging and name calling everyone who disagrees with YOU. You're the one sneering.
My loyalty is the nation and not to a person, or collection of persons. The agendas I refer to are contrarian and self serving agendas. Inconsistent with a "Conservative" agenda. Too many of these *agenda-ists* have gotten too comfortable with the Beltway and the access to the halls of power and opinion shaping that they, themselves, once railed against and disdained with passion.
I will say this, though. Bush has the right to nominate whomever he chooses. It is the kneejerk opposition to a candidate who hasn't the 'experience' of a judge that has me piqued. There is no requirement, whatsoever, that a SCJ be a judge, or have judicial pedigree. The Constitution was created without the advice and consent of Harvard and Columbia autocrats. It is understood to be what it is by millions of Americans who don't need the likes of Schumer, Hildebeast, Spector or the Capitol Hill pinheads telling them who can and should be on the SC.