Posted on 10/14/2005 6:47:23 PM PDT by quidnunc
Are you trying to say that W is God? Dude, you're in serious trouble.
Dude, my family went to four Bush rallies in Iowa last fall. He said that he wold appoint justices to the Supreme Court in the mold of Scalia and Thomas at each of these rallies.
I am talking about all the abuse coming from the Presidents own party. Notice that the Dims are staying out of the fray as long as we are eating our own.
Wrong, Wrong Wrong. Never said it, nope not once. I've never said that. I do have the right to voice my opinion.
Bush may get another one or two SCOTUS appointments. Bush needs to be on a rising curve in these appointments, but it looks like the quality of his appointments is declining, which does not bode well for the future. Bush needs to be aware of this.
I agree with you. Let's wait and see.
Hardly. He said "The most primary issue is will they strictly interpret the Constitution of the United States." Russert then tries to get him to say exactly what folks like you claim Bush has said. So how does Bush respond... "Well, I don't think you're going to find many people to be actually similar to him. He's an unusual man." He then lists the reasons why he likes Scalia, starting with the fact he knows him well. He goes on to say that he likes a lot of other judges as well.
So where in all that do people draw the claim "Bush promised he would appoint judges in the mold of Thomas and Scalia." The correct answer is...YOU CAN'T. You can correctly say Bush believes the primary issue is that judges strictly interpret the Constitution. You can correctly say he likes Scalia in part because he knows him. But you cannot say, "Bush promised to appoint judges in the mold of Thomas and Scalia." So for the sake of the truth, please don't.
I, for one, am getting sick and tired of holding my nose in the voting booth.
Note that Souter sounded great at his hearings.
Is Harriet Miers a strict constructionist who will not rule from the bench? I don't see any evidence of that in her work or record. Sorry, but the more I look at this business, the more I conclude that the whole business was a sorry mistake, and that the best thing for Bush, Miers, and the country would be for her to drop out.
Let's see, Bush names but two SCJs. Why didn't he name Souter?
Then I'm sure you'll have no trouble finding a reference to support that. As a point of fact, I have attended 4 Bush rallies myself (one in Illinois, one in Wisconsin and two in New Jersey) and I never heard him say it.
Close enough = Horse shoes and Hand Grenades.
"Hello, Kettle? You're Black."
"Well, I'm sorry. Bush is my President, and in general, I support him. But his softened stance on some other issues (borders and spending, to name two) has shaken some of that initial trust. Yes, he's made some good, solid picks for the federal bench, and in John Roberts, as well - but this was readily apparent when he picked them. Miers is still somewhat of a mystery, but more importantly, that breaks with his previous pattern - and whenever a pattern deviates, it is smart to raise questions."
Bingo. And whats "dividing" the party is not disagreement over Miers, its the way her supporters are bashing honest conservatives who have valid questions about her as a nominee. Keep at it and we'll be a minority party again.
A: She Hasn't been shown to be in the past. Who knows about the future - too much risk.
Q: Is Miers more qualified than Roberts, Scalia, Thomas?
A: Nope.
My BS meter regarding your postings is pegged. Apparently yours is busted.
I think that goes both ways. I've seen more bashing of those who choose to adopt the "wait and see" attitude here.
I personally find it all rather sickening.....all this "infighting". I'm sure the Dims are just loving it.
"He is however President, and therefore has the right to nominate whomsoever he pleases."
With that said, the conservative movement is bigger than any one person. Its an ongoing culture, a consciousness that must be sustained and grown. Bush has to go back to texas to live. His relationship with Mexico is very important in his eyes, unlike Clinton whom has no desire to live in Arkansas except to occasionally show up to check on his library.
We have every right to question Bush's nominee to the supreme court. The nominee will remain long after he is gone. If she turns out to be a something less desired during the committee hearings, let the conservative leaders know about it.
What I find interesting about the whole issue is the "de ja vu" ness of this nominee ala Cheney. Here Cheney was supposed to find Bush a VP. After Cheney put alot of candidates through the hoops, Bush looks at Cheney, and says why not? Now here we have Miers putting SC justices through the hoops, we get Roberts, and Bush looks at her and says, why not? It doesn't really smack of chronyism as more of convenience, but qualified.
Of course, Clinton brought a bunch of wackjobs with him from Arkansas. Of course the only one that was halfway decent was Witt for FEMA, and there was that other guy that killed himself in the park. Oh, and then there was that gas CEO guy who became Clinton's chief of staff who turned out to be a joke and was reassigned.
He probably doesn't like Souter (although comments from anti-Meirs folks on this site would lead one to believe Souter must be Bush's hero). But are you really trying to argue that the reference you provided says "Bush promised he would appoint judges in the mold of Thomas and Scalia"?
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.