Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

What's missing? Why did Justices Ginsburg and Stevens affirm Roberts' refusal to answer questions?
one man's opinion.......

Posted on 10/01/2005 8:08:51 AM PDT by ken5050

Possibly I've become far too cynical as regards the Dems and politics, but the recent comments by Justices Ginsburg and Stevens, both of whom essentially said that Roberts was absolutelty correct NOT to answer question about matters that may come before the Court, leave me flabbergasted, scratching my head, and wondering both why? and why NOW?


TOPICS: Politics/Elections; Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: 109th; ginsburg; miers; robertshearings; scotus
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051 next last
Immediately as Roberts was being confirmed and sworn in, the Dems were blustering about the next nominee.

Let's review the Dems main objections to Roberts, and subsequent candidates:

1. The WH did not release all the documents they requested. Properly so, but the next nominee will not have worked in the WH council's office.

2. The next nominee has what the Dems call "extreme" views about certain issues. RBG addressed this issue on point, saying that she answered all questions about issues and topics she herself had previously raised in her writings and speechs. IMHO, this absolutely means that Janice Rogers Brown won't be the nominee. The hearing would turn into a zoo, an absolute circus, about every word she had ever written or uttered. While she would be a superb Justice, it's not worth the politcal effort, as there are many equally qualified candidates, all of whose writings and speechs have been carefully vetted by the WH.

3. The nominee refused to answer questions about any cases that may well come before the court in thefuture, especially those pertaining to Roe. This will be the key point upon which the Dems will fight the nominee, and their main attempt to justify a filabuster.

And the WH, and GOP senators have awakened to find they they have received not one, but TWO early Christmas presents, from Justices Stevens and Ginsburg, who both, in the last few days made public comments totally affirming Roberts' decision, and also, thoroughly bitch-slapping Chuckie Schumer.

All the next nominee has to do is to memorize these comments, and prepare to regurgitate them innumerable times, and also, BTW, smile a lot.

So what possessed Stevens and Ginsburg to say what they did, and equally as important, IMHO, WHEN they did, just before Roberts takes his seat as CJ. There are several possibilities:

1. They are both worried that CJ Roberts will take away their parking spaces.

2. They worry about being assigned more homework.

3. They fear they won't get the juiciest assignments to write opinions on the really good cases.

4. There is some evil Dem/lib conspiracy at work here..we just haven't figured it out yet?

5. Both Ginsburg and Stevens are deeply respectful of the Court, the rule of law, and the Constitution, and are secretly appaled at what the Dems and lib interest groups have done? I mean, after all, we all know what the first line of Clinton's obituary will read. if you were Gnsburg, would you want yours to read..."The SC justice cited by Chuckie Schumer as the reason for filabustering other nominees...?

It's possible that both Justices Ginsburg and Stevens love the Supreme Court, the Rule of Law, and the Constitution, and are concerned with their legacy, and the Court they will leave behind, and are secretly appalled at how the Dems have polticized the process. While many here do not agree with most of their opinions, we may owe them a debt of gratitude for these last actions. We shall see...

One last point. Just as I stated that I believe that JRB will not be the nominee, it is possible that Stevens is signalling that he will retire after this upcoming term, and give President Bush a third nomination to the Court. After all, he was a Republican, appointed by Nixon, and though he has become more liberal in his career, as he contemplates the idea of Hillary Clinton or any of the other announced Dem candidates for the WH namng his successor, he may well decide he can't allow that, and chose to step aside.

He is 85, and while is good health, he also recognizes that his time is finite, and he may choose a more relaxed final chapter of his life than did Rehnquist. He's also seen O'Connor decide to step down on at a time of her choosing.

1 posted on 10/01/2005 8:08:52 AM PDT by ken5050
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Howlin; OXENinFLA; Congressman Billybob; Mo1; Bahbah; maggief

FYI


2 posted on 10/01/2005 8:10:10 AM PDT by ken5050 (Ann Coulter needs to have children ASAP to pass on her gene pool....any volunteers?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ken5050

My guess is that they weren't forthcoming. They don't want to be hypocrites.


3 posted on 10/01/2005 8:10:36 AM PDT by GraniteStateConservative (...He had committed no crime against America so I did not bring him here...-- Worst.President.Ever.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ken5050

Don't make the mistake of thinking that Ginsburg and Stevens know Roberts better than Bush and Rehnquist.


4 posted on 10/01/2005 8:13:44 AM PDT by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ken5050

"The next nominee has what the Dems call "extreme" views about certain issues."
------
Always blatantly revealing about the iberal activists. EXTREME VIEWS means: Following the law, supporting the Constitution, interpret the written law, not making law on the bench...this is EXTREME to the socialists who are working hard within thier sick, un-American ideology, to use the SCOTUS as a liberal law-making body to institutionalize liberalism and socialism in our conntry.

Some still seem surprised at this long-recognized objective of the libs...


5 posted on 10/01/2005 8:19:19 AM PDT by EagleUSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ken5050
What is happening with those justices is the same thing that is happening with the country at large. It is similar to the second term of Reagan as well.

As the current administration works through issues, while under constant attack from the left, it is becoming clear that the opposition is not prepared to lead, but only complain. Liberals have not put forward a single positive agenda idea in over six years.

I don't think that anyone has missed the point that Liberals today appear to be nothing more than fanatical idiots bereft of ideas to move the country forward. I think those justices are aware that Liberal control of the US would mean the end of the nation as we know it.

6 posted on 10/01/2005 8:20:29 AM PDT by Pukin Dog (Sans Reproache- and now...CAPTAIN AMERICA!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ken5050
I think you may be on to something. I am guessing that their loyalty to the guild is stronger then their loyalty to party. An awful lot of "Conservative" judges lept to the defense of the Courts during the Terri Sharvino battle. Seems to be a certain territoriality in Judges about the courts.
7 posted on 10/01/2005 8:21:28 AM PDT by Lukringwithintent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ken5050

Ginsburg and Stevens may both leave during Bush's term.


8 posted on 10/01/2005 8:22:00 AM PDT by ncountylee (Dead terrorists smell like victory)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GraniteStateConservative

Since when has being hypocritical ever been a problem for the Dems, though?


9 posted on 10/01/2005 8:22:15 AM PDT by Hurricane Andrew (History teaches that wars begin when governments believe the price of aggression is cheap.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: ken5050

I'd love to see her list ...

http://www.journalnow.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=WSJ/MGArticle/WSJ_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1031785351471

Thursday, September 29, 2005
Ginsburg visits Wake Forest University

Supreme Court justice speculates on next nomination

By Titan Barksdale
JOURNAL REPORTER



Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said yesterday that she would like to see another woman named to the nation's top court, but "not any woman."

"I would not like to be the only woman on the court," Ginsburg said during a speech at Wake Forest University. But she added: "There are some women that would not make good judges."

She didn't name anyone specifically and said that the main requirement should be the quality of the candidate, regardless of gender. She said she has a list of qualified women but hasn't been asked for it by the Bush administration.

(snip)


10 posted on 10/01/2005 8:24:08 AM PDT by maggief (No 'luffs)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ken5050
The next nominee has what the Dems call "extreme" views about certain issues.

But I thought that judges were supposed to rule on the letter of the law and not allow their rullings to be steered by political or other opinions.

Worrying about a judge's political views says a lot about the Demorats. The justice system is full of liberal judges that legislate from the bench, so they naturally expect judges nominated by Repubs to be the same way.

11 posted on 10/01/2005 8:27:24 AM PDT by Excuse_My_Bellicosity ( "Sic semper tyrannis." (Your dinosaur is ill.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ken5050

A potential/intended justice can't reveal personal opinions about a number of issues in these interviews because it would establish a public record of opinion that would then render future possible rulings moot: their opinions would be/could be used to hold any future, related issue ruling as bearing prejudice by the justice.

Meaning, they have to be careful what they reveal as to personal opinion in order to not provide "pre-existing" appearance of prejudice and/or personal opinion that would show bias in any future ruling/decision from the bench.

All some attorney would have to do is say, "see, you said in 2005 that you considered X to be less important than Y and that means that you are today biased in favor of Y and your ruling of today in favor of Y indicates personal bias and is therefore the basis of an appeal of today's ruling."

Something close to that, anyway, since I'm no attorney. Nor a judge.


12 posted on 10/01/2005 8:30:26 AM PDT by BIRDS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Pukin Dog

I don't think that anyone has missed the point that Liberals today appear to be nothing more than fanatical idiots bereft of ideas to move the country forward.
-----
Only their kool-aid drinkers have. They are of the ilk that cares about nothing, knows nothing, and has no idea how this country works or what has made it great. The libs have but one agenda...and it is NOT moving America forward. It is the generation of a SOCIALIST, government dominated and controlled society. But they cannot say that...deception is a must for them, as they continue to LIE AND DECEIVE.


13 posted on 10/01/2005 8:31:29 AM PDT by EagleUSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: ken5050
Justices Ginsburg and Stevens, both of whom essentially said that Roberts was absolutelty correct NOT to answer question about matters that may come before the Court, leave me flabbergasted, scratching my head, and wondering both why? and why NOW?

It would be unprofessional and unethical to comment about future cases that may come before the court. Just because he is familiar with the cases from reading the news media, that doesn't mean that he is intimately familiar with all of the legalities.

For him to comment on matters before they come to the court shows prejudice and would damage any claims of him being an impartial judge.

14 posted on 10/01/2005 8:32:43 AM PDT by Excuse_My_Bellicosity ( "Sic semper tyrannis." (Your dinosaur is ill.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ken5050

"All the next nominee has to do is to memorize these comments, and prepare to regurgitate them innumerable times, and also, BTW, smile a lot."


Cute kids and volunteer work for gay groups wouldn't hurt either.


15 posted on 10/01/2005 8:36:11 AM PDT by gondramB ( We cannot defend freedom abroad by deserting it at home.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: maggief

 

RBG PICK #1?

16 posted on 10/01/2005 8:38:33 AM PDT by Dr.Syn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: ken5050

As an aside, C-Span 2 is airing a meeting of the Commission on Dem Presidential Elections. It is fascinating to those who inject politics directly into their veins Harold Ickes just said that the election period is way too long and if it had gone on longer, their candidate would have been at zero. They are trying to dis the non-diverse states of Iowa and New Hampshire. The tug of war is very telling.


17 posted on 10/01/2005 8:39:09 AM PDT by Bahbah (Call Chuckie Schumer @ 202-224-6542 for your FREE credit report)heh-heh!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ken5050
Both Ginsburg and Stevens are deeply respectful of the Court, the rule of law, and the Constitution, and are secretly appalled at what the Dems and lib interest groups have done?

I think a good Justice understands that an activist court, left or right, influenced by interest groups and political parties is a very bad thing. While I consistently disagree with Ginsberg/Stevens conclusions, I generally don't find naked activism on their part as members of the court, say, in the way the 5th Circuit (I think that's the one) is.

I believe that Ginsburg and Stevens, by publicly addressing this are attempting to remove fuel from the fire of the next hearings because...brace yourself...they think it is WRONG to predetermine anything. I for one can imagine many situations where you might disagree with he outcome of a case, but might have to vote in a certain way because of the particulars of a case. That is the nature of the beast.

As far as the next nominee...I for one, am unwilling to second guess the President and make myself look like an utter fool. In fact, I am continually surprised by those who are stupid enough to do it over and over again.

Good analysis Ken.

18 posted on 10/01/2005 8:39:28 AM PDT by pollyannaish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ken5050

I think guessing why Stevens and Ginsburg have defended Roberts for not answering some questions is like guessing, when they were confirmed, how they would rule as judges, for the most part. Although in Ginsburg's case I think there was never much doubt about how she would vote on an abortion case.


19 posted on 10/01/2005 8:39:29 AM PDT by Wuli
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ken5050

The GOP should call them as witnesses in the hearings for the next Supreme Court nominee.


20 posted on 10/01/2005 8:44:11 AM PDT by linkinpunk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ken5050
4. There is some evil Dem/lib conspiracy at work here..we just haven't figured it out yet?

It may be more of a power struggle than a conspiracy. Schumer had a very condescending attitude toward Roberts and really played up the dire consequences of no Congressional oversight beyond the confirmation hearing. Now he certainly didn't say anything that meant there should be such oversight, but you can only take the rhetoric so far before you start to give credence to the idea that there are no checks and balances in the other branches for the Supreme Court. I think it was mostly turf defense. I'm sure if Roberts had been a Clinton nominee RBG would have found the time to say that before the vote.
21 posted on 10/01/2005 8:46:00 AM PDT by Ragnorak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ken5050

Maybe Justices Ginsburg and Stevens just discovered here is a new Chief Justice that is brilliant. He could make life unbearable for them. Remember, the Chief Justice is in a powerful position and he has an IQ that is out of sight. I honestly feel they fear his intellect.


22 posted on 10/01/2005 8:46:23 AM PDT by Logical me (Oh, well!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: EagleUSA
Some sample "extremists" (as viewed by the left):


23 posted on 10/01/2005 8:46:43 AM PDT by BenLurkin (O beautiful for patriot dream - that sees beyond the years)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: ken5050

Point Three is moot. These two will never join the new permanent majority on anything of importance, so they'll never be writing any significant opinions.

Except for their own dissents.


24 posted on 10/01/2005 8:49:39 AM PDT by Norman Conquest (Matt... Damon...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dr.Syn

Ann during the confirmation hearing would break all television records.


25 posted on 10/01/2005 8:59:01 AM PDT by TomasUSMC (FIGHT LIKE WW2, FINISH LIKE WW2. FIGHT LIKE NAM, FINISH LIKE NAM.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: ken5050

The republicans own the committees and can force votes and disallow crap form the communist/socialist/anarchists if they WANT TO.

The problem is - the "republicans" don't want to. They are sniveling cowards that need to go back and find their manhood somewhere where they lost it back in gradeschool.


26 posted on 10/01/2005 9:01:35 AM PDT by hombre_sincero (www.spadata.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ken5050

My guess is like gold standard Alan Greenspan supporting the institution views of the FED after being appoint chairman of the FRB, Ginsburg and Steven are supporting the instution in which they work. They probably don't want the SCOTUS particularly the confirmation process polticized more.

Of course this is a contrdictory position for Ginsburg who was giving the president political advice in her not just any woman will do speech. I suspect she took enough internal heat for that to take this step. [This worry of politicalization is why I think if or when Roe goes it may go 8-1 or 7-2. I would think if it were to be over turned swing votes like Kennedy might want to join in so that the abortion advocates could see that they had to take the battle to the states and would not hope to change the membership of the court again and continue this battle.]

Throw in that Roberts is the new guy assigning who writes opinions and the possible rift between Renquist and Souter and maybe they are also trying to curry favor with the new Chief.


27 posted on 10/01/2005 9:03:49 AM PDT by JLS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: TomasUSMC

It would certainly be the most memorable moment of TV history.


28 posted on 10/01/2005 9:04:08 AM PDT by Dr.Syn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: ken5050

Stevens and Ginsberg are both close to leaving the court. IF one presumes the Democrats believe they will win the next presidential election, they are covering future justices from having to answer questions Democrats are asking now but won't be asking in the future if they do win. Health may force either to leave before the end of Bush's presidency, but I'd bet a nickel they are holding on as long as possible hoping for a Democrat president.


29 posted on 10/01/2005 9:06:55 AM PDT by Morgan in Denver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pukin Dog

Morning PD,
Your words are those of (bonafide reality) today.
Truth=Realism,
NSNR-CSAOTL


30 posted on 10/01/2005 9:09:52 AM PDT by No Surrender No Retreat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: BIRDS

You may not be an attorney or judge but you're right on what would happen if a potential jurist exposed themselves on how they would rule.


31 posted on 10/01/2005 9:09:54 AM PDT by Morgan in Denver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Pukin Dog

Liberals today appear to be nothing more than fanatical idiots bereft of ideas to move the country forward<<<

always remember.......
A conservative bases his politics on his morals/principals
A liberal bases his morals/principals on his politics.....Rudderless ships on a sea of whim with no destination


32 posted on 10/01/2005 9:18:41 AM PDT by M-cubed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Pukin Dog
I do believe it was Justice Stevens who commented on the Kelo decision as one that did not serve the country well.

Perhaps, they too, see the folly of their constant legislating from the bench. The natives are getting restless with their meddling in legislative prerogatives.

33 posted on 10/01/2005 9:22:38 AM PDT by OldFriend (One Man With Courage Makes a Majority ~ Andrew Jackson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Bahbah
The Iowa Caucus is THE most corrupt vehicle for choosing a candidate as can be found anywhere.

It's run by the power brokers and the honest candidate is doomed.

34 posted on 10/01/2005 9:24:27 AM PDT by OldFriend (One Man With Courage Makes a Majority ~ Andrew Jackson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: JLS
My guess is like gold standard Alan Greenspan supporting the institution views of the FED <<<

What??? U think Al has changed his mind a little??? http://www.321gold.com/fed/greenspan/1966.html Prolly the last time he ever spoke or wrote something that the average person could understand without a talking head interpreter...
35 posted on 10/01/2005 9:26:51 AM PDT by M-cubed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Logical me
I honestly feel they fear his intellect. <<<

pompous and false self-esteem is such a wonderful thing to lose...
36 posted on 10/01/2005 9:32:38 AM PDT by M-cubed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: OldFriend
The Iowa Caucus is THE most corrupt vehicle for choosing a candidate as can be found anywhere.

It is clear, listening to this Commission, that they all know that Iowa is not giving up its pole position. This whole thing is pretty hilarious...how can we win by jiggering the system. I'm listening carefully to Ickes, because I want to hear the plan to make Hillary! the candidate. His major hope is to shorten the campaign period so people will see less of her.

37 posted on 10/01/2005 9:33:01 AM PDT by Bahbah (Call Chuckie Schumer @ 202-224-6542 for your FREE credit report)heh-heh!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Pukin Dog
I think those justices are aware that Liberal control of the US would mean the end of the nation as we know it.

I would doubt this. Justice Ginsberg has devoted her life to the cause of liberalism and don't think she's changed her mind on that.

Maybe she was just getting too many requests from journalists as to her opinion on how Roberts answered and just decided to be proactive about it and have a presser of her own rather than being cornered in the parking lot by journalists. She told it the only way she could without being hypocritical: that he was correct in not answering certain questions.
38 posted on 10/01/2005 9:39:48 AM PDT by uncitizen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: uncitizen

I am keeping my hopes for Janice Rogers Brown. Any woman that calls the government a bunch of thieves has my vote.


39 posted on 10/01/2005 9:43:43 AM PDT by appeal2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: appeal2

Ooh. Did she say that? I love it!


40 posted on 10/01/2005 9:45:36 AM PDT by uncitizen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: EagleUSA

The Communist Party is alive and thriving in the Democrat Party!


41 posted on 10/01/2005 10:01:11 AM PDT by Patriotic Bostonian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: maggief

"I would not like to be the only woman on the court," Ginsburg said during a speech at Wake Forest University.

America to Ruth, you can fix the problem by resigning.


42 posted on 10/01/2005 10:07:13 AM PDT by Lunkhead_01
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: maggief

Thanks for the link.. I think Roberts will surprise a lot of folks, happily for our side....He believes the Rule ofLaw must operate outside the realm of politics..but he also cut his teeth in the Reagan WH, and he has just see the Face of politics up close and personal..and he knows it cannot be ignored...What I found most telling, ( and no oe else has yet remarked on it) if you read his remarks at his swearing in, was that the first person he thanked, after the President, was Ed Gillespie, for getting him through the process...There were several hundred people in the room..Ed was the MOST political type there..I think that's Roberts' thumbing the Dems in the eye..


43 posted on 10/01/2005 10:12:33 AM PDT by ken5050 (Ann Coulter needs to have children ASAP to pass on her gene pool....any volunteers?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Patriotic Bostonian

The Communist Party is alive and thriving in the Democrat Party!
-----
Worse than that, it is THRIVING in the Progressive Caucus IN OUR CONGRESS!!! Talk about HYPOCRISY. We are out running around the world, fighting oppression, communism, dictatorships, and we allow this crap to fester in our Congress, in the ACLU, and in the CPUSA.

Just take a look at WHO belongs to the Progressive Caucus in our Congress....it amounts to very dangerous gross hypocrisy.


44 posted on 10/01/2005 10:14:57 AM PDT by EagleUSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: M-cubed

This is one of the beauties of the Roberts appointment. He has lived/worked inside the beltway for decades. He is not going to go native on us ala Souter.


45 posted on 10/01/2005 10:16:31 AM PDT by JLS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Morgan in Denver

If the Republicans had a history of blocking even the most Liberal of Justices, that theory would be sensible. But I doubt either Stevens of Ginsburg fear the Republicans breaking new ground in this aspect.

I couldn't hazard to state I know the absolute cause, perhaps, it is due to their feelings Congress is attempting to usurp their power. The branches can be territorial beyond ideology when they feel threatened.

Perhaps, also, memory of the process underwent creates sympathy. They aren't inhuman, though they may be activist Liberals.

Then there is the possibility when they choose to depart they'd prefer to do so speedily then suffer an ongoing battle over their replacement.


46 posted on 10/01/2005 10:39:31 AM PDT by Soul Seeker (Barbour/Honore in '08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: EagleUSA

I have more hope now than I did 10 years ago. I see them being exposed more every day. They will continue to lose elections. I have faith in God and also in the people of this Country.


47 posted on 10/01/2005 10:41:16 AM PDT by Patriotic Bostonian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Bahbah
Screamer Dean blasted the Iowa caucus system a few years ago and the powers that be brought back his vitriol about their corruption and they punished him. Big time. They made sure he didn't win the Iowa caucus and the rest is history.

I remember them shutting down Bill Bradley's places to vote and giving Bradley's votes to Gore.

This time they gave Dean's votes to ketchup boy when Kennedy rolled into town to take over.

Gephardt was shoved aside too.

48 posted on 10/01/2005 11:07:16 AM PDT by OldFriend (One Man With Courage Makes a Majority ~ Andrew Jackson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: ken5050

Simple. Sucking up to the new head dude.


49 posted on 10/01/2005 11:21:35 AM PDT by M. Thatcher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Soul Seeker

If a conservative nominee for the Supreme Court is borked, then a liberal nominee is krobed?


50 posted on 10/01/2005 6:04:14 PM PDT by The Red Zone (Florida, the sun-shame state, and Illinois the chicken injun.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson