Right!
Posted on 08/12/2011 9:56:32 AM PDT by Brices Crossroads
Rick Perry is rapidly becoming known as a politician who talks a good game, but whose actions belie his words. Last year, he waved the bloody shirt of secession, which horrified the New York Times...until they dug deeper and found that Perry wasn't just talking about seceding. He was aiming to hook up with Mexico in order to fulfill his "shared with [Mexican President] Vincente Fox for open borders." Seriously, though, Perry is becoming a caricature of himself. He first waved the tenth Amendment on gay marriage and abortion, first supporting the interpretations that states should be responsible for defining marriage and related issues, and in a flip-flop worthy of Mitt Romney, came out in favor of a federal constitutional amendment to ban both.
Perry's open borders positions tell us that he is not a conservative. His political pan-gyrations on gay marriage, abortion, and the Tenth Amendment suggest he is not reliable there either, but would trim his sails at the slightest pressure.
Well, he must be good on something. How would he handle judicial appointments, for example. Bear in mind that in Texas, in contrast to states such as Alaska (where a Commission presents the Governor with three choices from which he or she MUST select a Judge), the Texas Governor has pretty much unfettered control of the appointments process to fill judicial vacancies. In a conservative state like Texas, it would be easy to remake the courts in a conservative mold. In fact, it would almost follow de facto, since the appointed justices must face election state wide. No doubt Perry will try to take credit for the relatively conservative state of the Texas judiciary as he has done with the Texas economy when the relative health of both has been more in spite of, than because of, Rick Perry.
I have not done an exhaustive study of Perry's judicial appointments, although undoubtedly conservatives in Texas would have done so. I found one particular judicial appointment, the subsequent election, and Perry's reaction to it to be most instructive about his orientation toward strong judicial conservatives.
In 2001, one of Perry's first selections to succeed the staunchly conservative Greg Abbot (who had been elected Attorney General) was Xavier Rodriguez, a self-described moderate. In trying to move the Texas Supreme Court to the left, he drew the ire of conservatives in Texas. An up and coming young conservative, Steven Wayne Smith stepped forward to challenge Rodriguez. Smith, who was superbly qualified, had argued and won the landmark 1996 case of Hopwood v. Texas which successfully challenged affirmative action at the University of Texas Law School. In effect, he was a hero to conservatives in Texas and an anathema to the Establishment. The Establishment, including Perry and John Cornyn, no doubt detested Smith for dismantling affirmative action at the UT Law School. But when Smith stepped forward to challenge a self proclaimed moderate appointment of Perry, who happened to be Hispanic, that was the last straw. Perry and his cronies in the Establishment did all they could to stop Smith but he prevailed over Rodriguez easily and was in stalled as a justice of the Texas Supreme Court.
In 2004, Perry encouraged a challenger to run against Smith. The Establishment lined up with Cornyn and Perry on one side and the Texas Eagle Forum,Kent Hance and Ward Connerly on the other. This time the Establishment prevailed and Smith was defeated. He attempted a comeback in 2006, but Perry recruited another challenger, less conservative than Smith, and he lost by less than 1%.
Perry's actions, and his vindictive crusade against an up and coming conservative legal superstar, suggest that a Perry Presidency would be more likely to yield David Souters and Harriet Miers than Antonin Scalias and Clarence Thomases. When it comes to Rick Perry, the message to the Federalist Society and constitutional conservatives is caveat emptor.
Zot 2, bucket carrier.
Right!
Zot 3, bucket carrier.
You seem genuinely concerned that conservatives might mistakenly nominate the wrong candidate. Your unbiased analysis of Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann are welcome enlightenment for those of us uninformed voters dispossessed of your superior political insights.
I, for one, am truly grateful for your efforts to save us from the perils of our own misguided decisions.
But if not Perry or Bachmann...certainly not Romney...who does that leave? ...who should we vote for? Ron Paul?
Oh Great and Powerful Brices...please tell us whoooooooo!!
I will not just take this persons word for it, but it gives me information to check further.
Like one Freeper said, you can give us ALL his positive points.
Have never seen anyone with quite so many pages after pages of “Perry Derangement Syndrome” posts. When PDS Coyote is looked up, there’s bricie smiling like ronpaul.
You need to consider talking with your Doctor, this Perry fetich can not be good for you.
I’ll boil it down for you: Perry is Huckabbe God-word frosting on Romney cake with Texas bravado candles.
Zot 4, democratic bucket carrier...
Zot 4, bucket carrier...
Because he’s a nit-pickin, FOS liar with some sort of ax to grind. Just like you.
See I told you the democratic propaganda bucket carriers will rush to the forefront! We’re here! We’re here!
No. Brices Crossroads is an unabashed Palinite and apparently the Palinites have decided that bashing Perry is now their new mission instead of defending Palin, this despite nothing in the Perry camp saying anything critical of Palin or, for her part, any criticism of Perry directly by Palin.
It's disappointing to me because I think it is quite possible that Palin could eventually endorse Perry for president as she did when he ran for governor. then, where will Palinites like Brices Crossroads be? Will they suddenly climb aboard and support the candidate their hero endorsed? Or will they become Bachmann supporters? Or Romney supporters?
Zot yourself.
Love it...
Are there actually any canditates that are any good on illegal immigration?
Bump.
What concerns me is the level of vitriol directed at anyone who displays even the slightest amount of skepticism about a candidate.
If any of the “bucket carriers” for Perry can or will, maybe they ought to get busy presenting information that refutes the OP’s comments.
Since the truth is the PEOPLE voted Smith out not once, but three times, the propaganda bucket has holes in it.
Smith was just a lawyer who made millions off the University of Texas university system lawsuit against affirmative action.
And then his case got abrogated by the US Supreme court.
Money totally LOST for KRAP!
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.