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

Skip to comments.

President Will, Justice Powell and Chief Justice Wilkinson (HUGH HEWITT slaps little George Will)
HughHewitt.com ^ | October 22, 2005 09:47 AM PST | Hugh Hewitt

Posted on 10/22/2005 8:11:57 PM PDT by Checkers

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 241-258 next last
To: duckln
Try to actually read my post, ducky. If you are then still having a problem identifying the points, then get someone to help you.
61 posted on 10/22/2005 9:26:03 PM PDT by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie

"Hewitt is a poseur conservative, always has been."

Was that before or after he worked for Reagan?

Come on people...


62 posted on 10/22/2005 9:27:38 PM PDT by Checkers (I broke the dam.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: counterpunch

You're way behind. New articles claim Laura Bush selected her. Then just today, we have the WT claiming that Andrew Card picked her.


63 posted on 10/22/2005 9:28:21 PM PDT by onyx ((Vicksburg, MS) North is a direction. South is a way of life.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: nopardons; Stellar Dendrite
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". :-)

Stellar made a specific charge and provided the damning evidence.
You on the other hand are just throwing around rhetoric with nothing to back it up.
64 posted on 10/22/2005 9:29:14 PM PDT by counterpunch (SCOTUS interruptus - withdraw Miers now)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: nopardons
If you are then still having a problem identifying the points, then get someone to help you.

Trying the old slipperue are you? Upshot is you don't have 3 points or you lack the ability to clearly delineates them. Is it the former or the latter?

65 posted on 10/22/2005 9:31:32 PM PDT by duckln
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: counterpunch; Stellar Dendrite; nopardons


Give it a rest.

It violates FR rules to bring posts meant to incite from other threads, but you won't ever see nopardons hitting 'abuse' -- she replies and holds her own.


66 posted on 10/22/2005 9:31:48 PM PDT by onyx ((Vicksburg, MS) North is a direction. South is a way of life.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: counterpunch
You don't know that for a fact. But, even IF true, it IS the president and only the president, who picks the nominee.

O'Connor was NOT known to Reagan, yet, when all was said and done, it was his choice and his alone, to send her nomination to the Senate. The same is true of his Ginsberg and then Kennedy choices, after Bork was BORKED.

Pick out any president, anyone at all and it is always and ONLY his final say so.

Why is this so difficult for you to grasp, ducky?

67 posted on 10/22/2005 9:32:18 PM PDT by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: Checkers

President Bullwinkle here with an equal time looney commentary:

If I Were President: Speech on Nominating a Supreme Court Justice

NOTE: This post contains naughty language, up to and including a synonym for a donkey. Yes, if I were President, I would swear more often.

Liberals and the American People, I come before you today to explain what I am seeking in a new Supreme Court Justice. Some think there needs to be special qualifications to be a member of the Supreme Court, but I would like to remind you of something:

THE CONSTITUTION IS ONLY LIKE THREE FRICK'N PAGES LONG!

Theoretically, anyone with a sixth-grade level of reading comprehension should be able to check if something is allowed by the Constitution. Instead we have all this precedent crap and who knows what else to complicate the hell out of what should be a simple thing. What's really needed here? Years and years of a legal education or just an hour reading the actual document in question here?

Some have asked if there will be litmus test based on the Roe v. Wade decision.

OF COURSE THERE WILL BE!

And it hasn't nothing to do with abortion, either. It's just that anyone who thinks that Roe v. Wade is a sane Supreme Court decision should not only not be a Supreme Court Justice, he should not be a Supreme Court janitor. I mean, come on; the majority opinion spelled out things based on trimesters! Now, simple question: Is that something out of the Constitution or something pulled out of one's ass? And should judgments on law be based on the Constitution or what comes out of one's ass?

I think we all know the answer to that.

Anyhoo, appointing a Justice is still an important thing, because it is a lifetime appointment. Then again, I can always kill them and pardon myself - yet another check and balance. And it's an option I may use if some of the more choice idiots in the Supreme Court don't decide to retire.

And that's all I had to say about that. God bless.

Author Unknown

68 posted on 10/22/2005 9:32:47 PM PDT by Colonial Warrior (You can't tell how good a man or a watermelon is 'til they get thumped. Character shows when tested)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Checkers

Will is the Old Media idea of a conservative.


69 posted on 10/22/2005 9:33:48 PM PDT by etradervic (Able Danger, Peter Paul Campaign Fraud Case, Whitewater, Sandy Berger...demand answers!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Checkers

(Hugh Hewitt slaps little George Will)



I am surprised he had the time between kissing butt and licking shoe leather in the White House.


70 posted on 10/22/2005 9:34:42 PM PDT by trubluolyguy (REPUBLICAN'S! "Who the hell else are you going to vote for?" (2006 Party Motto))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nopardons

"What was Ann Coulter's "valid concern about John Roberts? Can you even name two? She couldn't and didn't."

When Ann went nuts against Roberts, she officially entered Klayman Kountry.


71 posted on 10/22/2005 9:35:18 PM PDT by Checkers (I broke the dam.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Mount Athos

The Amen Corner would apparently like to see the First Amendment temporarily suspended when it comes to the president's SC nominations.


72 posted on 10/22/2005 9:36:01 PM PDT by clintonh8r (Sexist and elitist. Or so I'm told.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Checkers

The Worthless Miracle
Since Jul 28, 2005



Thank you for that, some of the rest of us hadn't figured out how to tell when someone else had joined up.


(sarcasm/off)


73 posted on 10/22/2005 9:36:04 PM PDT by trubluolyguy (REPUBLICAN'S! "Who the hell else are you going to vote for?" (2006 Party Motto))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: nopardons

LOL!!! nice comeback...


74 posted on 10/22/2005 9:37:01 PM PDT by Stellar Dendrite ( Mike Pence for President!!! http://acuf.org/issues/issue34/050415pol.asp)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Checkers
Or worse.

I have no idea why she went after Roberts and I don't think that she knows why she did so either.

75 posted on 10/22/2005 9:37:35 PM PDT by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: nopardons
Why is this so difficult for you to grasp, ducky?

I agree absoluely, the president does the picking. That is not the question. Do you know what the question is?

76 posted on 10/22/2005 9:37:59 PM PDT by duckln
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: Oklahoma

After reading Will for over 30 years I believe he is the true mental midget.



And yet you read him for over thirty years.


77 posted on 10/22/2005 9:40:06 PM PDT by trubluolyguy (REPUBLICAN'S! "Who the hell else are you going to vote for?" (2006 Party Motto))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: counterpunch

"Spare me the crap.
Another member said something you didn't like, something contrary to your own opinion, so you pulled up his member page and used the date he joined as an ad hominem attack as an attempt to discredit him.

It was low, irrelevant, and not at all admirable."

How is posting the date a member joined an ad hominem attack?

Sounds like you're the one full of, to use your phrase, crap.


78 posted on 10/22/2005 9:40:43 PM PDT by Checkers (I broke the dam.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: trubluolyguy
I am surprised he had the time between kissing butt and licking shoe leather in the White House.

Hell, I'm surprised Hugh even had the opportunity to read the Will piece.
I didn't realize the Washington Post delivered to Hewitt's rectum.
79 posted on 10/22/2005 9:41:10 PM PDT by counterpunch (SCOTUS interruptus - withdraw Miers now)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: counterpunch
Stellar broke FR's posting rules.

I am an HTML moron, but even IF I could do links, I would not scour old threads and CCP stuff, with which to indict him.

The charge was puerile, school yard bullying, and off topic.

This was baiting and pushing, to start a flame war. I didn't and won't fall for the "bait".

I post facts. I stay on topic. Why don't you try to do the same?

80 posted on 10/22/2005 9:41:59 PM PDT by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 241-258 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