Skip to comments.Did Bush promise to appoint a justice like [in the mold of] Scalia? Have we been misled?
Posted on 10/15/2005 3:15:52 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
click here to read article
Are you having difficulty comprehending my point? Let me make it a little more simple for you.
The President nominates candidates. The senate either votes up or down on the candidate based on hearings. Your ability to choose nominees ends once you vote for President.
Your incessant whining and shrieking about Miers plays right into the democrats hands. You're carrying water for Clinton, Kennedy, Schumer, Pelosi...ect... The standard the republicans set prior to this massive hissy fit was: Let the Senate vote on the nominee and don't hold up nominees based on political ideology. Now the hypocrites have played right into the dems hands by demanding that political ideology is the ONLY factor that matters in rejecting a nominee. Congratulations to ya. Your griping is worth more to the dems than a fat contribution from your checking account.
What a cop out. That's leftist thinking.
You heard exactly what YOU wanted to hear, not what was actually said.
I guess that depends on what the meaning of "is" is.
Leftist thinking indeed.
To be fair, some court observers and Bush watchers say that although the Bush judges are pro-business and pro-defendant, they are far more "moderate" than their more conservative predecessors. "His judges tend to be moderate-conservative judges," says Anthony Champagne, a professor at the University of Texas at Dallas. "Bush has quite an impressive record when it comes to Texas. His appointees have been a moderating force on the Texas Supreme Court. They are pro-defense, but not extremely so. They tend to often be well regarded by people on both sides." Even Court Watch reported that "a contingent of four justices initially appointed by Gov. George W. Bush appear to be intent on eliminating the excesses of the GOP old guard elected between 1988 and 1994." Still, Texas conservatives understood that Bush's judges would follow the lead of those parked further to the right. During Abbott's 1998 election run, he raised money from business and defense interests under the "reform" banner. One of his fundraising letters reads: "His election to a full six-year term is critical to continue the reform movement that has done so much to return balance, fairness, and impartiality to the Supreme Court."
Well Jess, let me make it real simple for you.
I have first ammendment rights and I'm going to express them. Since you like to offer up solutions to others, I'll just suggest that if you can't handle it, move to a nation where people do not have a right to express themselves.
The President nominates candidates and I as a citizen am going to make it known what I think of them.
Inceassant whining and shrieking? You are one dilusional soul. Since Miers nomination I have made around five comments on this forum with regard to her. In them I have stated that I think Bush could have and should have done better. That must be pretty drastic language by your standards. LOL Incessant whining and shrieking? If nothing else Jess, you're good for a laugh.
I have stated that the left is trying to attain what they couldn't at the polls, by judicial fiat. I have stated that I want to make sure that our last line of defense against this, the Supreme Court, has rock solid conservative judges to prevent it. If you truly do think that's carrying water for Clinton, Kennedy, Schumer and Pelosi my hats off to you. That is perhaps the most obsurd comment I've heard in months.
Well 'incessant whining and shrieking' mustn't have been good enough for you. Now you're off on a hissy fit of your own. In fact that last post was a doozie of a hissy fit.
Let's see, we have a woman who may or may not be a rock solid well grounded constructionist, and you'd like to give the democrats and a few Republicans the chance to install her. Frankly, I don't want to.
A hipocrite would by a person what had voiced the disire to have a good conservative judge installed into the Supreme Court, and then supported just anyone the President lofted without any objection whatsoever, no matter what. Sorry, I just don't fit the bill. I can think of someone who does.
You just go right ahead supporting a women that very well might be another Souter, and I'll be content to voice objection. There are pleanty of good people out there with a record. My gosh, you mean we could have had one of them? The horrors...
My objection to a possible Souter trumps your support of such a person. Tough luck.
It's not absurd at all. You're doing exactly what conservatives have accused the left of doing. Objecting to a qualified candidate purely on ideological grounds. You can't have it both ways.
Had Bush nominated Alan Dershowitz, would Republicans have no business objecting to the nomination on ideological grounds?
Is there any Bush nominee you wouldn't support?
I predict Bush will publicly confirm that he never said "I will nominate a candidate in the mold of Antonin Scalia or Clarence Thomas."
I believe Bush actually said "I will nominate a candidate in the mold of Sidney Appelbaum or Walter Finkelstein."