Your point is moot.
If you want a Google GMail account, FReepmail me.
They're going fast!
Posted on 09/21/2005 4:54:29 PM PDT by goldstategop
Perhaps President Bush has inadvertently nominated a true conservative to the court with this Roberts fellow. I remain skeptical based on the following facts:
Anita Hill has not stepped forward to accuse Roberts of sexual harassment.
The Democrats did not accuse Roberts of having a secret life as a racist.
We have no idea what kind of videos he rents.
Also, I'm still steamed that Bush has now dashed my dreams of an all-black Supreme Court composed of eight more Clarence Thomases. Incidentally, eight more Clarence Thomases is the only form of human cloning I would ever support.
As liberal Hendrik Hertzberg wrote in the New Yorker, Roberts was a scared choice. After Hurricane Katrina, Bush was even more scared. So when he had to pick a chief justice, he renominated the Rorschach blot.
For Christians, it's "What Would Jesus Do?" For Republicans, it's "What Would Reagan Do?" Bush doesn't have to be Reagan; he just has to consult his WWRD bracelet. If Bush had followed the WWRD guidelines, he would have nominated Antonin Scalia for the chief justiceship.
As proof, I refer you to the evidence. When Reagan had an opening for chief justice, he nominated Associate Justice William Rehnquist. While liberals were preoccupied staging die-ins against Rehnquist and accusing him of chasing black people away from the polls with a stick – something they did not accuse Roberts of – Reagan slipped Scalia onto the court.
That's what Reaganesque presidents with a five-vote margin in the Senate typically do. Apart from toppling the Soviet Empire, Scalia remains Reagan's greatest triumph.
Scalia deserved the chief justiceship. He's the best man for the job. He has suffered lo these many years with Justices Souter, Kennedy and O'Connor. He believes in a sedentary judiciary. He's for judicial passivism. Scalia also would have been the first cigar-smoking, hot-blooded Italian chief justice, which I note the diversity crowd never mentions.
But most important, if Bush had nominated Scalia, liberals would have responded with their usual understated screams of genocide, and Bush could have nominated absolutely anyone to fill Justice O'Connor's seat. He also could have cut taxes, invaded Syria, and bombed North Korea and Cuba just for laughs. He could even have done something totally nuts, like enforce the immigration laws.
Even if Roberts turns out to be another Rehnquist (too much to hope for another Scalia!), we don't know that, Bush doesn't know that, and Bush has blown a golden opportunity to make Chuck Schumer the public face of the Democratic Party. A few weeks of Schumer as their spokesman, and normal Democrats would be clamoring for Howard Dean to get back on the stick. Teddy Kennedy would start showing up at hearings actually holding a double scotch.
Inasmuch as Bush must still choose a replacement for O'Connor, it's important to remember the "Sandra Day O'Connor bylaw" to the WWRD guidelines: Never appoint anyone like Sandra Day O'Connor to any court at any level.
Reagan had made a campaign promise to appoint a woman to the Supreme Court. He didn't say anything about appointing a ninny. But back in 1981, it was slim pickings for experienced female judges. O'Connor was a terrible mistake and will forever mar Reagan's record, but at least he did it only once.
Bush has already fulfilled all his campaign promises to liberals – and then some! He said he'd be a "compassionate conservative," which liberals interpreted to mean that he would bend to their will, enact massive spending programs, and be nice to liberals. When Bush won the election, that sealed the deal. It meant the Democrats won.
Consequently, Bush has enacted massive new spending programs, obstinately refused to deal with illegal immigration, opposed all conservative Republicans in their primary races, and invited Teddy Kennedy over for movie night. He's even sent his own father to socialize with aging porn star Bill Clinton.
(Sidebar on the aging porn star: Idiot Republicans fraternizing with the Clintons has not harmed the decadent buffoon's reputation abroad. A Chinese condom manufacturer recently named one of its condoms the "Clinton," a fitting tribute to the man who had Monica Lewinsky perform oral sex on him in the Oval Office on Easter Sunday. Their advertising slogans are: "Always wear a 'Clinton' when you're getting a 'Lewinsky'!"; "I still believe in a place called the G-spot"; "Extra-thin skinned!"; "For when you really, really want to feel her pain." Note to Bush: This isn't Walter Mondale. How about sending Pops on the road with Joey Buttafuoco?)
According to my WWRD wristwatch, it's time for Bush to invade Grenada, bomb Libya, fire the air traffic controllers, and joke about launching a first strike against the Soviet Union. In lieu of that, how about nominating a conservative to O'Connor's seat on the court? It would be a bold gesture.
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
Who gave us O'Connor??? Wasn't it Pres Reagan???
During the Reagan years, many, many conservatives called the Gipper too soft on the Soviets and too addicted to spending. While the Gipper is rightly lionized now, he certainly was not back then. How soon we forget.
She of the lethal remark turns on our leader.
Shows her colors. Confirms our suspicions. All marginal allies may depart now.
Let's roll.
Your point is moot.
If you want a Google GMail account, FReepmail me.
They're going fast!
Is she wrong to do so?
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
Is she wrong to do so?
Hello! Tell it like it is.
If you want a Google GMail account, FReepmail me.
They're going fast!
I wonder where Ms. Coulter places Justice O'Connor on her list of Reagan's greatest accomplishments.
This column is beneath Ann Coulter's intellect.
She shouldn't write when she has nothing of substance to say.
While Bush is not RWR, he is a fine president. And a very bold one.
I am in agreement with Ann in some regards. I am concerned about Judge Roberts as a nommiee, and I think he should not have been choosen for the CJOTSC position, but someone from the court.
I am a Bush supporter, however he has his shortcomings, illegal immigration is one, IMHO, and his handling of Iran during the conflict in Iraq.
His using Bill Clinton for any offical work I find sickening.
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
W W R D ?
Reagan's choice was down to O'Connor and Helen Neis from the CAFC. Neis was not a dem, but was appoited by Carter's "bipartisan committee" arrangement. Reagan had a strict policy against elevating anyone appointed by a Dem, so helen was sunk. She would have been a much better choice.
"During the Reagan years, many, many conservatives called the Gipper too soft on the Soviets and too addicted to spending. While the Gipper is rightly lionized now, he certainly was not back then. How soon we forget."
I won't, inkling! Reagan was the first President I had the honor, duty and privledge of voting for. It was so exciting! And it turned out well, I think. :)
I do remember my Dad, a staunch Republican, getting as mad at President Reagan as I do some days at President Bush. ;)
No, I mean the First Church of GWB has supplanted the Principles of Conservatism that used to drive this forum.
But you probably knew that already.
Ann tells it like it is once more. Dubya and his Bush family have become a major, major disappointment to this conservative. With 6 years down and just 2 more to go, one can only count the missed opportunities squandered by Bush. Like Frist, he just doesn't have it in him to be a Reagan. Too bad.
Perhaps the dumbest column Coulter has ever written. Reagan biggest failure was that he appointed O'Conner and Kennedy and didn't get Roe reversed.
And that's akin to blasphemy. I'll be the first to admit that I like President Bush. He drives me insane on a few things, but I respect him a lot.
BTW, I'm not a conservative. That term has become radioactive as far as I'm concerned. I hold more respect for the term "conservative" than I do Democrat, Leftist, Progressive, socialist, or populist (all of which are on the lowest rungs of Dante's Inferno). Yet it is still radioactive.
If you want a Google GMail account, FReepmail me.
They're going fast!
Ann is just fine and she makes a lot of sense - For you to suggest she is against GWB or us is simply foolishness -
Go get some tinfoil -
Hey, I resemble that remark!
Dubya ain't perfect, but he's pretty darn good.
Mind you I agree with most of what Ann says, especially the "Bush is no Reagan/no conservative" line of thought. BUT, have her columns completely descended into rambles?
You wrote: Point taken. But Reagan is still the gold standard for a Republican President in the same way Jesus is a model for Christians.
I second that!!!
Reagan nominated O'Connor and Kennedy. You can only do your best job, and hope it's enough.
I don't see your point. True, the Dems are not fighting Roberts tooth and nail, but neither are the conservatives. Roberts has been very successful in not showing his hand. If he turns out to be conservative (and I personally think he will), he will be the most brilliant conservative ever to sit on the Supreme Court. He is smart enough to cover his tracks.
Of course, the liberals have always been that way, but we've never had a consevative with that quality.
Bush would be a fool to appoint someone to O'Connor's seat before the Roberts vote. I don't see what that proves.
Bush-bot globalists against the Reaganites.
Not from me! I think Reagan was one of the finest men in world history. I also think Bush will be among our finest presidents. So there! ;o)
If you want a Google GMail account, FReepmail me.
They're going fast!
Yes, indeed it was. And notice how she tries to imply that Reagan gave us Clarence Thomas.
She's been disgraceful attacking GWB under the guise of evaluating (ludicrously) Roberts.
I thought that was what the Dems were doing questioning his "civil rights record" as a lawyer for the White House
We have no idea what kind of videos he rents.
Dr Zhivago and North by Northwest
I love Ann, but this reads like it was written before the hearings.
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
Amen, pissant! The devil is trying all kinds of tricks to divide this nation and it's especially painful to see such petty division among our ranks. Ann Coulter, in Gen. Honore's words, is "stuck on stupid," except she thinks she's smarter than everyone else. This is 2005 and Dubya is President. These are different times; look for the virtues in the man we have now. No president in my lifetime has put forward such a bold agenda and that is without flinching!
I still wonder how the Dems got that movie info.
I thought video rental records were protected under law AFTER the Dems used Bork's against him. Apparently they were alarmed with his enjoyment of "Ruthless People"
If you don't want to do so, that is fine. But you can't argue later that the president should have "reached out" to conservatives.
ping
Pardon me, but a Republican should not have to "reach out" to Conservatives.
We got him elected, after all.
Awhoe lot of "perfect conservatives" think the president hasn't reached out to them. Read FR for a few days, and you will see it.
If memory serves us correctly he also gave us Kennedy didn't he. That should answer her question.
I think Scalia's age may have entered into Bush`s final decision. Scalia was a little too old. The choice was Roberts for 25-30 years, or Scalia for 10-15 years. A no brainer. Personally, if not Scalia, then surely, Justice Thomas.
>>>>Bush has enacted massive new spending programs, obstinately refused to deal with illegal immigration, opposed all conservative Republicans in their primary races, and invited Teddy Kennedy over for movie night. He's even sent his own father to socialize with aging porn star Bill Clinton.
LMBO!!!
Yeah, I seem to remember some president in the 80's had written the 11th commandment, "thou shall not criticize another republican". Who was that, oh yeah it was President Reagan. Reagan was a great man and a great president, but don't forget he gave us O'Connor, Amnesty, pulled the Marines out of Beirut, signed a tax increase in 1986, and so on. Reagan was criticized by many of the so-called pure conservatives of the time, but those conservatives seem to have forgotten those differences.
Dubya ain't perfect, but he's pretty darn good.
Got that right. Lets hope he nominates another O'Conner. Yeah that was a great appointment there! Yep, the chick who says racism will go away in 25 years! Real brilliant appointment from the Gipper!
I see your point. I'm actually glad, that unlike liberals, the conservative movement has every shade of conservative under the sun! Criticism is OK by me, as long as it is tempered by the acknowledgement of the great things this President has done. I like Ann Coulter, but think she's just silly 25% of the time.
So Republicans aren't allowed to criticize an elected official? The Founding Fathers are turning over in their graves at such a suggestion. Read on.
Let's start with the phrase, 11th commandment. It came during the 1966 Governor's race in California. That was a slogan Reagan didn't create.
"The personal attacks against me during the primary finally became so heavy that the state Republican chairman, Gaylord Parkinson, postulated what he called the Eleventh Commandment: Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican. It's a rule I followed during that campaign and have ever since.
Now, I'm not Ronald Reagan and neither are you. I believe Reagan was speaking for himself when he made those remarks. He didn't mean, you and me.
Btw. Have you forgotten? Candidate Reagan had some harsh criticisms for PresFord during the GOP primaries in 1976.
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.