Posted on 09/17/2005 9:43:37 AM PDT by HapaxLegamenon
Roe's Influence on the Choice of the Nominee Candidates > Jones | 06:14 PM | Tom Goldstein | Comments
Second, and directly relevant to the President's ongoing process of selecting a nominee to replace Justice O'Connor, the article attributes to "[s]ources close to the White House" the fact that Edith Jones "is no longer under serious consideration." The reason "in part" is "concerns that her strongly voiced views against abortion would alienate Collins, Snowe, and other Republican moderates."
(Excerpt) Read more at sctnomination.com ...
A quick question: How many votes will we get from your state for a conservative nominee? .... and before you ask, it will be two from mine.
This is becoming like a bad episode of XFiles or something.
I said, "I am far from alone is deciding that if these two issues are not being serviced, then it gives me less than sufficient reason to vote Republican next time. I and many others are willing to accept the consequences of voting conscience rather than party, regardless of how many names you call me, or how much you malign my character or political intelligence."
Please explain exactly where in that paragraph I said that you had ALREADY maligned my character or called me names? WHERE???
So for you to continue to prattle on with that factless claim is at this point pathetic. It did not happen, and even if you repeat the lie a thousand times, it still didn't happen.
Maybe in the morning, after you've had some rest, you can read what I wrote and see that what I said, what I actually said, was that if the two issues are not being serviced, then I and many others are willing to accept the consequences, regardless of how much you (and as I explained earlier, "you" referred to the moderates) call me names and malign my character.
Carefully note the tense I wrote that in: THE FUTURE TENSE. Do you see any English grammar related hint that I was referring to the past tense???? Even though there isn't the least shread of a hint of past tense in that statement, you continue to falsely claim that I said you called me names and maligned my character IN THE PAST.
Give it up. In the clear light of day, and with a plain reading of the actual words of the posts themselves, you are wrong.
And so far, by concentrating on this false and factless claim of yours, you have successfully ducked the real issues that my first post to you centered on. Securing the borders and President Bush's promise of strict constructionist USSC nominees.
Instead of creating negative attitudes about the President by guessing what he might do, why not just wait to see who he'll nominate? All of our fulminating about it won't affect his decision, it will only stir up anger and bad feelings where none might be warranted.
Point me to at least two instances in which you've offered significant criticism of any political or administrative actions by President Bush, and I will apologize for calling you a moderate.
To the best of my knowledge, neither Thomas nor Scalia had ever written any abortion opinion before they got to the SC as the DC Circuit doesn't hear abortion cases, yet do you doubt that at their hearing they didn't know exactly what they thought of Roe and how'd they rule on it?
Do you believe Thomas was truthful when he told the committee that he'd never thought about Roe and had no opinion on it whatsoever?
I'm not criticizing you, I'm just saying that the idea that judges hear all cases with an open mind is not realistic.
I see, so in your pea brain one must currently reside in a conservative-dominated state to have an opinion on the matter?
Re your #47:
Our two RINOS from ME, affectionately known as the "Queens of Infanticide" by some up here, essentially OWN the ME Republican Party, keys and deed, and Snowe in particular will crush any primary contender who dares to even consider challanging her, while their own Party hangs them out to dry.
They also own their seats in Congress for as long as they want them, for all intents and purposes.
As sad as that may be, most of us conservative pro-life Maine Pubbies are pretty much resigned to that fact.
As much as I hate to, i have to concede that your scenario is probably an accurate prediction.
About the only way, I speculate, that Pres. B. could get even a "moderate" Judge on the SC at this point is to threaten to recess-appoint a devout hellfire-and-brimstone evangelical pro-life radical conservative if the Commiocrats and RINOS pull any fillibuster stunts on his initial Nominee.
Can't you just hear those baby-butchers HOWL!!??
The Recess appointment would be tempestuous and short, no doubt - but it might make a big difference in the direction that our Country's going in at the moment.
And what's the POTUS got to lose?
The left hates his guts about as much as they could anyway; if they had any way to impeach him, rest assured that they would...
and he's termed out, so he's not running in a popularity contest this time around.
Such drastic action just might get his "base" back into the tent for the next GOP Presidential contender - whom we might at least hope will be somewhat more Reaganesque.
And, if I may opine; desperate times demand drastic measures!
Well thank you for the reply, I see you completely miss the point. I should have known from your original post. I will try to explain in small words. The fact that Republicans, some in name only, have more members in Congress, does not mean they are all as conservative as we would like. Further we have states, like yours, where we get no help.
The point is, no matter how many times people like you rant about Republican control in Washington, that does not mean conservative control. Further, being that you are clueless, perhaps it would be best to restrict your opinions.
If you wish to call me more names, please do so by FReep mail, so I can tell you what I really think of you, and your limited insight.
Again, a strict constitutionalist is all I (and most other Republicans) ask for, and the current make-up of Congress is sufficient for that to come about. Your allusion to the fact that my state is Rat-infested was completely irrelevant to the discussion.
I agree. But with Spector, Snowe, Collins etc, do we really have a majority?
Specter's the chairman of the Judiciary Committe. That alone is reason enough to assume that a moderate will be nominated. Remember, Specter stabbed Bork in the back, and he still justifies his actions to this day. Don't get your hopes up.
Whose bashing Bush?
You can have Snowe & Collins anytime you want them! Take them please. The mods and liberals pretty much purged the Conservatives in the Republican Party up here in Maine several years ago. It's pretty much hopeless up here.
When asked what his position is on Roe vs. Wade, George Bush replied that
he really doesn't care how people get out of New Orleans. :)...sorry I just had to post this
An interesting note on Roe v. Wade: on NPR last week, an interview about Justice Blackmun (I think it was Blackmun, but it's early and I haven't had any coffee...at any rate, the Justice who wrote the majority opinion)...His notes on the case indicated he'd never meant for women to have unrestricted access to abortion. The court was attempting to streamline state laws and felt abortion should be available in cases of rape, incest, and extreme fetal abnormalities. Blackmun was astonished when Roe v.Wade was read as a Constitutional right to unrestricted abortion, but said nothing, and his notes were never revealed until recently.
Pretty much how the media plays it these days.
Step away from the liquor now. You're making less and less sense.
So you call me a moderate and tell me the only way you'll apologize for that is if I can point to two instances where I've criticized the president. Wow.
Now that it's daylight, maybe you'll make more sense. But I doubt it.
And yet your very next post said you were sure I attacked you during Schiavo. LOL. When you can't even remember what you said, it's best to just stop.
And your cover assumes some kind of pre-emptive defense for something has yet to happen. That's kind of pathethic.
Which was in response to your demand that I find a time when you had done that. I complied, in general (said I wasn't going to take the time to find a specific post), and now you're using that to lie about what happened in this thread.
Whatever. You are debating like a liberal, Peach. Are you sure you aren't one?
And you're still avoiding the initial issues I raised. That's also a liberal's technique. What's your screen name over at DU?
Keep digging, hon. You're being shown to be a bigger liar with each post.
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.