Posted on 10/07/2005 9:10:28 AM PDT by Sabramerican
I'm in MA. Conservatives are tarred and feathered by the State party, every obstacle is put in their path, and the party's harder on them than the Dems.
Just an aside, being a southsider myself, I have a hard time imagining how hard it must be to be a Republican in Illinois much less Chicago.
Krauthammer has been off the mark before and is again.
It's a matter of different concerns. I'd rather we have few lawyers writing the law, but I want somebody good at the task of interpreting the law on the Supreme Court. The best way to ensure that is by their having experience on the bench.
The last thing I want on the Supreme Court is a philosopher-king, who doesn't deeply understand the legal or logical details but knows what they like.
The place for far-less-lawyerly types is in the Capitol building.
Bilge! How do you explain Roberts?
Im sure the President meant she was the best that is confirmable. That in itself is questionable, but I'm sure that is what he thinks. I don't think one should give up party loyalty on the basis of one extempore remark to a reporter.
A decent President is probably not electable in the U.S. these days.. pity too..
All the viable democrats up until 2004 are Gores and Kerrys, and all the republicans have are Bush Jr's, and Bush Sr.'s...
Its humorous that some here have proposed the presidents brother as a viable option.. or a Giuilani of all things, whatever that is..
As 2007 approaches the Jaws theme plays and Hillary is showing her dorsal fin in the distance.. and republicans lark around skylarking in the surf.. and the surfers are unafraid.. Republicans clapping their flippers together like sea lions and barking for Bush.. only adds to the show..
ME, Mike?.. where do I stand..?..
You couldn't get me near the water with an army of Bushbots.. Well maybe Hillary will cleanse the republican gene pool.. What don't kill you only makes you stronger..
That is all Mike..
The worst thing for me is that most of the time there is no one to vote for, except on the state and national levels, and sometimes not even then! The local Democrats generally have no contested primaries, and there is no GOP slate. I voted Libertarian last time because that's who was running against Jesse Jackson Jr. Last year when I was taking my kid trick or treating, I came up to a house with a Bush/Cheney sign and made a positive comment about it. The guy seemed a bit suspicious of me at first, but I think we departed brothers.
Things could be looking up for Illinois GOP in the gubernatorial race next year. We have some good solid candidates and a weak Dem. incumbant.
Is it because he is one?
Right... Looks like John Birch was an optimist...
Blago is horrible. But Ryan was worse.
It's kinda like national politics, Kerry would have been worse than Bush. Probably.
I always seem to get whacked for stating what I am about to, for the twentieth time or so, which is why I seldom respond to anything on this forum anymore, however, there is always hope.
GWB IS NOT A CONSERVATIVE. Never has been. He, like his father before him and his father before him, is a NWO Global Elitist. All members of Skull & Bones (a secret society in itself), all members of the CFR which are sold-out and committed proponents of global government. It may surprise no one that the Clintons are very much part of this elitist organization as well as have been involved in clandestine business dealings with the Bush dynasty for a long time.
GWB choosing Miers for the supreme court will be (and has been) touted by many Bush-Bots on this forum as a master stroke of genius and part of an overall plan to once again, cut off the Democrats at the pass. While I do believe this is, in fact, a very calculated move on Bush's part, it's not for the same reasons. My belief is that this move is intentionally designed to piss off the conservatives, like it has the gentlemen who posted this. It's the old divide and conquer scenario.
Bush realizes that conservatives will be split on this. Doha party supporters will continue to lick his boots, while real conservatives will leave the party, stay at home on election day, or cast a protest vote in another direction. This will then put Hillary in the Whitehouse, which, I believe, has been the plan all along.
Ask yourselves. Why is Bill Clinton, not only NOT in jail for a myriad of treasonous crimes, but actually appointed important tasks by this administration? Why does nothing stick to the Clintons? Why did the crimes of Sandy Berger truly go unpunished? Why are so many Clinton appointees still serving in this administration? The questions go on and on.
The bottom line is, a great number of Republicans and Democrats are all playing on the same team, and heading this nation toward a new North American State. Constitution be damned. They don't care about you, your sovereignty or what you think. The only thing they care about is money and power over you and what little REAL freedom you have left.
All I ask is that you think about it and do some serious digging into this. The information is out there and totally verifiable. Many of us on this forum, of like mind, realize there are a great number of people who will never believe, simply because it's a scary thought.
...But it's also headed right toward us. All we have to do is look up and see the oncoming train.
THIS self-respecting Republican and conservative (and I need neither your permission nor your approval to be so) would say that under the Constitution, the President gets to nominate, and the Senate gets to confirm...or deny.
When any of us becomes President, it will be our responsibility to choose. But we are not. Bush is. As I recall, some were beeyatching about John Roberts (Ann Coulter)...then we heard him. Let's just see what happens.
Count me in...American male black conservative Republican, reporting for duty. The President nominates, the Senate confirms (or doesn't).
Which makes me wonder...what if the Senators (and Reps., but primarily the Senators) had to be confirmed in the same process by which they confirm everyone else?
Characterization of my disagreement as "whining" invites a characterization of your position as "shilling." Both are better left unstated. Moreover, your suggestion that had I investigated other positions, mine would be otherwise is both baseless and illogical.
Further, Miers brings to the Court skills and experience that should not be dismissed so blithely by the intelligentsia. In addition to the flashier constitutional issues, the Supreme Court docket includes more than a few cases affecting the business world.
Matters of constitutionality in the busines world come before the high court. And over a 30-40 year career, there is no indication that she has had any interest or experience in these matters. There is no argument that she brings a unique perspective. The question is whether or not she shows evidence of having developed the proper perspective on rule of law.
Some have created difficulties for business, and indirectly for consumers, because the justices simply didn’t understand the practical implications of their decisions.
Matters of expertise in how laws affect consumers and businesses are properly left with the elected branches. It's something of an orginalist position. And it is very telling that Ms. Miers' supporter's must invent roles never envisioned by the Constitution in order to justify her ascent to a seat.
Which is quite different from saying that she is the most qualified, of course. But you knew that.
BTW, I liked your comment about confirming senators according to the confirmation processes they impose on others.
aBootes: "Old people need not apply to SCOTUS".
Only younger people "know" about constitutional law?
Did you vote for President BUSH? If so, sticking to the subject of judges, why don't you trust his judgment on this matter? Has he appointed bad judges in the past? Didn't this woman Miers vet out Janice Rogers Brown, John Roberts, et al?
I should have changed the name of the column to avoid hurting your feelings? No offense was intended; I'm sorry you took it personally.
Both are better left unstated. Moreover, your suggestion that had I investigated other positions, mine would be otherwise is both baseless and illogical.
Sorry, I assumed that since the matter is still under discussion, you might be open to considering more information -- in the form of someone else's thoughts formed from a different point of view and area of expertise, even if you ultimately reject it. I'm reading all I can, both of views I lean toward and views and I'm inclined to reject. I find both kinds enriching, if in different ways.
I apologize for any offense. None was intended.
That is pretty much how I feel!
I boiled it down to: I voted for him to be the President of these United States of America. Knowing that he would be the leader of the free-world, Commander-in-Chief of the most powerful military in the world AND would have the Constitutional authority to appoint judges and nominate whom ever he damn well pleases to be a Supreme Court Justice.
If I didn't believe him to be capable of that, I would not have voted for him!
I support him in the same manner that I support the troops!
I, too, am having second thoughts about Bush. Illegal immigration, the rehabilitation of Clinton, largest spending in history, Mike Brown, Harriet Miers, his Nat'l Guard service, cow-tows to the libs & Rinos and to hell with the conservatives, no guts on McCain-Feingold, failure to even veto one bill sent before him, etc. etc. For the good of the country Ms. Miers should withdraw her nomination.
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.