No, and I certainly should realize by now that this dang keyboard is not placing the proper emphasis where I dictate.
No doubt HiTech RedNeck thought the same as you did, and for that I apologize. It was suppose to be a funny ribbing.
Posted on 10/12/2005 12:05:33 AM PDT by Ol' Sparky
By the blessing of the God he serves, Jesus Christ, Dr. Dobson has been granted a ministry and a microphone, and so his voice travels further than yours or mine. If Jesus Christ, the All in All, and God the Father, the Giver of Every Good and Perfect Gift has so blessed a particular man, and granted him wisdom for the asking, who are you to want to shut him up?
No one is trying to take your voice away. To the contrary, you have been granted the great privilege of posting your opinions, your voice, here at Free Republic, and your voice also carries to more than it would otherwise.
Trying to silence people is the domain of the DUmmies and the Devil himself, not freedom-loving and freedom-living Americans.
Praise God for every voice that in this freedom proclaims - wise or foolish, soft or loud, but never, by the grace of God over America, silent. Amen.
So Rove told Dobson that Rogers-Brown and Owen took themselves out of contention because they feared the process? Bullsh*t! They stuck it out through two entire rounds over 3 years. These women are made of steel. I do not believe for a minute that either one would have taken themselves out of the game.
Looks like some folks owe you a bit of an apology, Dog. Looks to me like your vanity the other day was pretty much right on.
No, and I certainly should realize by now that this dang keyboard is not placing the proper emphasis where I dictate.
No doubt HiTech RedNeck thought the same as you did, and for that I apologize. It was suppose to be a funny ribbing.
I do understand the argument. But "stealth" in not the same as "in the mold of Scalia and THomas." Those guys are anything but stealthy.
It's obvious a substantial number of people are feeling as though a campaign promise is going lacking - others feel it is being met exactly. There is enough uncertainty about Ms. Mier's constitutianal bona fides to give me the willies about her jurisprudence, but that is only one person's opinion. Reasonable people can disagree on whether Ms. Miers meets the campaign promise or falls short. In fact, they -DO- disagree on that point. See at least you, and me.
My larger concern is for President Bush, the GOP, and the "constitutionalist movement." I've expresssed why I have those concerns, and in general none of them have to do with Ms. Miers, the potential jurist or Ms. Miers the person. Again, just one person's opinion.
I haven't been able to find it either, but the way Gore phrased it in the debates, and the absence of reaction by then-candidate Bush, leads me to believe that then-president Bush was the first (of the two) to say that.
I'm still looking for old transcripts that substantiate my belief. As I noted, if anyone has a repository to campaign speech text, my offer to review it stands.
-- Miguel Estrada, nominee for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, withdrew his name from consideration Thursday after spending more than two years in limbo amid partisan wrangling over President Bush's judicial nominations.
1. The democrats have turned the nomination process into a total travesty that is so terrible that most people don't want to go through it. Any opinion written or verbla will be misconstrued and turned against the nominee. They will be villified and/or have tangential scandalous stories broadcast to the public.
2. Because SD O'Connor is a woman, the next justice must be a woman.
3. These two factors require that the WH can choose only an unknown woman. ergo Meirs.
Sooner or later someone must stand up to these charlatons.
Judges are elected in Texas, but Bush was nonetheless able to appoint four to the state Supreme Court to fill vacancies: James A. Baker, a state appellate judge and political supporter (not the former secretary of state); Greg Abbott, who had been a lower court judge and is now Texas attorney general; Deborah G. Hankinson, a defense lawyer; and Gonzales, who was Bush's general counsel and Texas secretary of state. Often included in the list of Bush appointees is Harriet O'Neill, whom Bush appointed to a lower court but who was elected to the high court.Gonzales was a demonstrated judicial activist in the Texas parental notification series of cases. Cites to the cases below, followed by a couple excerpts.Pragmatism Drove Bush In Texas Judicial Choices
By Lois Romano
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, July 8, 2005; Page A04
http://www.findlaw.com/11stategov/tx/2000_6txsc.html
TX Supreme Court 00-0224
Gonzales Concurring Opinion
Enoch & Baker Concurring Opinion
Abbott Dissenting Opinion
Hecht Dissenting Opinion
Owen Dissenting Opinion
Below cites are from: Texas Law on Parental Notification
The links are to the Texas Supreme Court case archives, and provide ZIP files. The archived year 2000 cases consist exclusively of WordPerfect renditions of the opinions. The archived year 2002 link include html and pdf renditions, in addition to WordPerfect.
A fair (i.e., accurate) summary of the majority opinions.
The Legislature directed trial courts to make findings of fact and conclusions of law. See Tex. Fam. Code § 33.003(h). The trial court in this case did so. Under well-established precedent, a reviewing court must presume that the trial court's judgment in this case is supported not only by its express finding that Doe was not sufficiently well informed, but also by its implied finding that Doe was not mature enough to make the decision to have an abortion without notification of a parent. Doe had the burden of establishing both elements of that ground fro proceeding with an abortion without notification. Nothing in the Family Code indicates that the Legislature intended to override the appellate principle that an omitted finding on one ground for relief will be presumed to support the judgment.One can safely assume the George Bush's political rhetoric has been fairly steady regarding the proper function of judges in our government. George Bush considers Gonzales to be a strict constructionist. That should give an open-minded thinking person reason for closer scrutiny of the pick, in advance.http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/texasstatecases/sc/000224d3.htm <- Owen Dissent
Often a court construing a statute wishes that it had more information about what the Legislature intended. Since issuing its first opinions construing the Parental Notification Act, this Court has received extraordinary assistance from Members of the Legislature in reviewing the history of the statute. The Senate and House sponsors of the legislation, together with eight other senators and forty-six other representatives, have informed the Court as amici curiae that its construction of the statute to date is incorrect, and they have provided citations to the hearings and debates on the statute to support their view. While the Court is certainly not bound by the post-enactment views of legislators, the Court is wrong to simply dismiss the parts of the legislative record that these legislators have cited in support of their position. Relying instead on a few minor, isolated comments it can find in the legislative history to support its own view, and disregarding significant portions of that record to the contrary, the Court dares the Legislature: If we have not got the statute's meaning right, then amend it. "This," says the Court, "is precisely how the separation of powers doctrine should work."http://caselaw.findlaw.com/data2/texasstatecases/sc/000224d2.htm <- Hecht dissent
That is not personal against President Bush, not from me anyway. The fact that I don't trust him on this matter doesn't mean I think he is a liar, or bad intentioned. He is a politician - and in the end, his actions have political ramifications.
OK, he has a microphone. He should not have special access to the WH. He should not have any more of a say in who Bush nominates to the SC than anyone else. Would you tolerate Planned Parenthood advising/approving/vetoing a nominee by a Democrat?
Plato is significantly responsible for the modern view of the "sophist" as someone who uses rhetorical sleight-of-hand and ambiguities of language in order to deceive, or to support fallacious reasoning. Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle all challenged the philosophical foundations of sophism.
Amen to that brother.
The sad fact seems to be thatteh GOP is unable and/or unwilling to stand up for principle and against the bullies.
The bullies are taking our lunch money.
Agree with him or not on the gang of 14, Lindsey Graham seems to be about the only one willing to fight.
Sounds like the anti-Miers folks will repeat their talking points, ad nausea, until the truth is overwhelmed.
President Bush was elected because of the man that he is, a majority-favored combination of his beliefs political and spiritual and social; the words with which he expresses the beliefs and the history that he has both as man and leader to prove that he means them; and those whom he chooses to surround himself with and be counselled by - mostly Christians.
Perhaps that's the problem for the naysayers here and elsewhere: A Christian President, his Christian friends, and his Christian nominees and appointments. That would not surprise me.
Amen to that brother.
So did Jesus. In fact, if someone claims to be His disciple and is not creating a "disturbance" in this present world system, he might examine his work to see if it is of God or men.
There's an important distinction between "in the mold of Scalia" and "strict constructionists". The first seems to paint the picture of those who would vote lockstep with Scalia regardless of principles. The second says they would be true to the written Constitution.
Gore was trying to paint that word picture rather than recite a true Bush quote.
But I agree with you that if someone can produce a quote of Bush promising to appoint people "in the mold of Scalia" then I'll accept it.
However, appropos of the current discussion, when President Bush hinted that Miers would vote the way he would like, he was painting his own word picture of someone who would vote lockstep regardless of principle. Whether he meant to or not.
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.