Posted on 07/20/2005 7:33:31 AM PDT by Babu
LOL.........doesn't she look a little like Leslie Nielsen (younger years) in drag?
That is a good point.
However, if the term has been that corrupted it would be a good idea to drop it.
Many of us would be called 'liberals' in the 19th century but we would not call ourselves that now since we know how the term has been corrupted.
"Sometimes its smart to take a word and twist it to mean something other than what it was meant orginally. It's what liberals did to liberalism."
It's also what the homosexuals did to the word "gay".
first 50...
>
> Not exactly the picture of health, is she. Needs more meat
> on those bones IMO.
>
>
> Maybe she should eat something, and then comment.
>
>
> Holy Crow! She DOES have an Adam's Apple!
>
...obviously we can't treat someone who has serious medical conditions in dignified manner (/sarcasm)
like i said "childish"
"So you're saying she's FOR a "Souter" (see title)?"
"Souter in Roberts' Clothing"
The headline is accurate, but it's certainly not applied to demonstrate that Roberts is a Souter as far as a liberal puke. She's certainly against a 'Souter,' but when I say "I don't think her intent was to argue against Roberts," I mean she's not arguing against Roberts personally. She doesn't say he's scum or some liberal that shouldn't ever be nominated. She's saying that he's a nominee with a Souter-like lack of conservative ideological credentials. That title has nothing to do with Roberts' personal ideals--it has everything to do with Roberts being Souter inasmuch as he is also a "stealth nominee". And she fairly denigrates Roberts' nomination on the principle that Bush has the Senate votes and the conservative judges, and the conservative base waiting, so it makes no sense to pick a non-paper-trailed-Souter-style stealth nominee now. And I do look forward to any quotes from her article that differ with that interpretation.
There was nothing erroneous about either of my comments.
And you said, "If it's fair game to say that her article is correct, that she looks great and that here is a picture of her, then why isn't also fair game by people who don't think her article is correct and who think that she's too skinny to say so?"
That certainly sounds like you're excusing them to me. The only time personal insults are appropriate are responding in kind.
"Nearly 800 posts, and Ms. Coulter's opposition almost never stops going after the woman as a chicken-legged drunkard who never loved Bush to begin with."
Your irrelevant aside on Hillary's legs notwithstanding, my sureness in my comments is only reinforced by your statements above, where you demonstrate that while you might not have agreed in your posts with those who denigrated her person, you certainly agreed with them in spirit. You certainly haven't disagreed with them by supporting them, unless there's some logic trick I missed where you wave a wand and doing A=doing B.
We could've gotten another Thomas, now it's all about settling for nominees who seem like they'll get through.
And all the hard work we did for a Republican majority was for....
I am confident you will be pleasantly surprised by Roberts. He may not be a Scalia or Thomas, but he will be a Rehnquist or better. A huge improvement over O'Connor. Bush will come back with an ultra-conservative on the Rehnquist replacement where the democrats can't make the case Bush is altering the balance of the court.
That wasn't her point. Coulter's point was Bush should have nominated someone with definite conservative principles with evidence of court rulings. I however think Coulter vastly underestimates Roberts background as an extranordinary conservative. Just because it is not written in concrete in judicial opinions, doesn't mean it is not there. Ann did not do her homework.
Wouldn't THAT be great!
The check is in the mail. ;-)
:-)
The chief justice is also paid some $10,000 per year more than the associate justices on the grounds that he has more administrative duties. The chief justice, Speaker, and vice president are all paid approximatley $202,000. The Senate majority leader is also paid more than regular senators but well over $20,000 less than the chief justice, Speaker, and vice president.
You're right. You have heard the adage about the professor asked whether he taught that the earth was flat or that the earth was round, and he replied that he could teach it either way the administration wanted. So it be with the lawyers!
It's because of advice like this that I'll never be asked to be a presidential advisor.
:-(
Yes, I think that the pressure will be put on him to appoint a more solid conservative candidate for SC in the future. I think Roberts was a good choice, but let's face it ALL of us wanted someone like JANICE ROGERS BROWN. Are we comfortable with EDITH BROWN CLEMENT?
We are not disagreeing yet.. :-)
nick
Laurence Tribe, a liberal professor of constitutional law at Harvard, remembers Roberts as a student there and has kept in touch with him over the years. He does not recall Roberts as a political conservative.
"He's conservative in manner and conservative in approach," Tribe said. "He's a person who is cautious and careful, that's true. But he is also someone quite deeply immersed in the law, and he loves it. He believes in it as a discipline and pursues it in principle and not by way of politics."
No, I think Roberts is possibly better than Edith Brown Clement, but if I had to choose an Edith, it would have been Edith Hollans Jones.
I've long since stopped referring to myself as a classic liberal. Nobody knows what that is. And the word liberal immediately raises questions in the minds of small government conservatives (although I'm beginning to believe small government conservatives don't really exist)
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.