Posted on 07/10/2005 7:19:51 AM PDT by colonel mosby
The system needs fixing that allows the whims of men to make law without being accountable. Let the legislative branch begin to control the power the judicial has stolen, or tear the system down and start over. Those are our choices. We are being ruled by judges, that is not constitutional.
I had been thinking the same thing as you a couple of days ago, and have been monitoring myself in that regard. President Bush is not CLINTON and deserves our respect, even when we disagree with him.
Failing to understand that they do not represent their base, they do not fight for their issues and demonstrating that they are spineless, compromising, concillatory cowards.
They will lose in 06 and then in 08.
"Get him in as a pro choicer and then have W twist his arm into voting pro life. It could happen."
Once he's on the Court, GW Bush has no leverage over him. A more likely scenario is that Gonzales professes pro-life views to GWB to get on the court, and then votes his true beliefs after he is confirmed.
To say nothing of his pro-gun-control stance.
Yes, Kristol is right. I fear that Bush couldn't care less about his "base". He is in his last term so the base doesn't matter anymore; its not like he was a party pilar before becoming President. I look for Bush to continue to alienate his "base" whatever that is.
If GWB or any R senator listens to and acts upon the wants and wishes of the democrat party, aren't they doing what the Dems want.
Why do the Dems get to pitch a stink and get their way from a republican president and senate, but conservative republicans just get to keep their mouths shut and take it.
Screw the R party. If they won't defend our values and our wishes, they represent someone else. Let someone else vote for them.
They can forget my vote.
This is a tired canard; there is absolutely no evidence to support this. Souter, Kennedy, Stevens, and O'Connor were all known moderates/liberals prior to their nomination. O'Connor was supported by NOW nags, Sen. Rudman knew exactly who Souter was when he recommended him to Sunnunu to recommend to Bush (as he gleefully states in his autobiography), Kennedy was known by Californians to idolize Earl Warren, and Stevens was nominated by that conservative stalwart, President Ford. Souter was the only one of this bunch who it was hoped would be a conservative, but he was never anything of the sort to begin with.
As a rule, I give W the benefit of a doubt, and have observed that he has more political savvy in his pinky than I in my whole house.
But if this is his "reasoning," it will vie for being named as the stupidest thought he's ever had as President.
Agree. I also think many should stop with the defeatist / negative comments / thoughts - Let's allow GWB to pick his man before all this -
My opinion, but thanks for the kind word.
Bush has worked with Gonzales for years and years BEFORE he was president and probably knows him very well, far far better than Reagan knew Souter.
Your opinion. If you don't trust Bush to make the correct decision on this, why did you vote for him and thus trust him to make other decisions as president
He was the better choice. That does not mean a march in lock step with him, or anyone. I am a free man, entitled to state my opinion and voice my objections.
(assuming you did vote for him)?
Assume what you want. I am an American citizen. I'm sitting in a wheelchair right now, because I felt strongly enough to join the Army and defend the Constitution and my country (and you).
So, feel FREE to voice your opinion as to my motivation all you want.
Take me for example. I am an attorney, voted and volunteered for GWB twice. I spent a lot of time because of this very issue. I am already ticked at GWB over the illegal immigration issue and would consider it the last stab in the back I ever take again for the GOP if he nominates a moderate or someone like Gonzales. I will never waste my time again.
It could be because people know that Bush is President. In your examples, you left off Gonzales and O'Connor whose titles were also not placed before their names. People know who they are. The reason for "panelists" may be that some people might not know them (although I don't know who wouldn't).
So, we, as citizens, should not even debate the issue? Just keep our mouths shut and keep our thoughts to ourselves?
You've got the right take. Kristol has been on the McLame bandwagon from the get go. This is HIS wishful thinking, not Bush's intentions. AG already said he isn't in the running. End of story.
Maybe Bush can get Dads buddy Bill Clinton to ease Gonzales onto the SC. Mom likes him too, Clinton that is.
"Kritol is a lib looking for "balance", which to a liberal means a five to four liberal majority."
You obviously do not know who Bill Kristol is. He is a jerk. He is an ego-maniac, he is also a self-promoter. I know this, because I know him.
He not -- however -- a liberal. In fact, he is VERY conservative. He is Editor of the Weekly Standard, former Chief of Staff to Quayle, a neo-con, and a well known and well regarded republican. He is not a liberal.
And, so far as I can tell, he is the only one -- the only one, to properly predict O'Connor's resignation before the Chief. That means he has good sources on these issue too.
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.