Posted on 10/22/2005 8:11:57 PM PDT by Checkers
Absolutely, no one is arguing that point, but please address the question at hand. Do you know what's being discussed?
I don't care- anyone who calls the Bible the "Baseball Encyclopedia of the religious" is a pretty damn clever writer.
I bet you could.
My point/s ( and there actually were three ), was the summation/boiling down of the past several weeks AND the meat of HH's article.
Now refute those points or agree with them or ignore my replies completely. It's up to you.
"How does attacking another member's tenure help make your own case?"
Where/when did I attack another member?
Griswold might have struck down the Texas law as overly broad, but in Griswold he came out against the "right of privacy" as understood by Douglas. Don't think he would have ever voted with the plaintiff in Doe.
One never knows, of course, but I suspect that he and White were on the same page in this issue. As you know, there were so many pro-abortion jurists who were nervous about making privacy the basis of the decision. Even weaker than Warren's sociological basis in Brown.
Correction
BLACK might have struck down....
WOW I've never seen such vitriol! I just like George Will. I didn't know about him & Roe v Wade, though...
Hey nopardons, you should be absolutely ashamed of yourself.
From the ann coulter thread-- looks like you were outed by the admin as adding some questionable keywords:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1505444/posts?page=242#242
Append keyword "bitterbiatch"
nopardons
10/19/2005 5:17:31 PM CDT
Append keyword "getannthorozine"
nopardons
10/19/2005 5:13:52 PM CDT
"Each anti-Miers ( and Chief Justice John Roberts' opponents too )pundit, is merely sour grapes, because the person/s they were rooting for, wasn't picked. This is a new phenomenon; one which I do not recall ever having seen before. It should now go away!
The only person who has a choice in any judicial nomination, right or wrong, is the president."
yep
Now we're getting somewhere. And your 3 points were what?
oh, you mean the assault weapon ban supporting quisling known as hugh hewitt?
Yeah, right.
I suggest that you buy yourself a very good dictionary, an annotated copy of the Constitution, and a passel of accurate, nonPC/revisionist history books.What I stated is a fact. Itr has ALWAYS been factual, and at no other time, in the history of this nation, have pundits and the MSM, let alone portions of the voting masses felt that it was their right and duty to go off on who the president pocked for the SCOTUS.
I didn't "smear" nor "impugn" a large number of Conservatives at all. Rather, I posted the bleeding obvious.
What was Ann Coulter's "valid concern about John Roberts? Can you even name two? She couldn't and didn't.
I get it......you don't like Miers. You don't like the article that heads this thread. You certain;y don't like my post. TOUGH !
Hey Stellar, you should be ashamed of yourself, for so many and varied reasons, that it should make you head spin. But then, pots never do "get it". :-)
:-)
"These that came out the first day...slamming her and President Bush..are no better than the people like O'Reilly and others that came out slamming the Swift Boat Vets on the first day, without interviewing them, or reading their book."
That's what pissed me off, excuse my French.
The ARROGANCE of some these clowns to think they have all the answers and the President is just a dumbs&!t amazes me. I expect it from the left,i.e. KosKids, DU(mmies), moveon.org... but to to see it from the Children of the Corn(er) and Ingraham...very disappointing to me.
I'm not all that surprised by George Will, Bill Kristol...snakes in the grass as far as I'm concerned, I say.
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.