Posted on 10/03/2005 5:19:55 AM PDT by Former Military Chick
Just be patient. I heard the same caterwalls when Roberts was nominated, and his phrase, "I'm for the little guy if the CONSTITUTION is for the little guy, and for the big guy if the CONSTITUTION is for the big guy" told me all I needed to know about him. Bush knows what he's doing. Repeatedly the phrase used by Bush---and it's stunning that you missed this---is "she will not legislate from the bench." Don't know how much plainer you can get.
What is intresting about this is that she was heading up the "search team" that found Roberts. I'd say that however those two vote, they'll often be voting together.
Rehnquist worked in the Nixon administration. Don't be so lazy...or dismissive.
I apologize as well. Perhaps I misread what your implication was, but I took your last post to mean that I have no belief system beyond the one I cited.
President Bush's rope-a-dope technique is brilliant. He takes a few hits without fighting back hard ,but he gets what he wants.
The process of appointing the person in charge of finding a qualified candidate gave us Cheney, too.
Bush is a genius.
oh and histrionic sturm and drang is so much more PRODUCTIVE? grow up.
Remember the last time someone headed up a Bush search team? I think his name was Cheney? He seems to have worked out pretty well.
“Once again, President Bush showed exceptional judgment in naming Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court to replace Justice O’Connor,” said Jay Sekulow, Chief Counsel of the ACLJ"
This is good enough for me....THANK YOU Mr. President, once again you've done good!!!
Dear MarkDel,
Well, it comes down to the fact that even though we are each conservatives, we disagree on some things.
First, I'm not persuaded that Mrs. Clinton will receive the nomination of her party. She's just not a very effective politician. There are folks here, when it is suggested that Mr. Giuliani run against her in '06, who state that she'd just duck that contest, and decline to run in '06. The funny thing is, the same speculation exists in the Dem Party, too. That doesn't suggest that anyone, Republican or Democrat, is especially impressed with Mrs. Clinton's political skills.
Second, I don't think she would harm our country as much as Mr. Clinton harmed it, and we survived him. We survived EIGHT YEARS of him. I have little confidence that President Clinton II would obtain a second term.
Third, I don't view the islamofascist pigs who are trying to destroy our country as being as much of a danger to our country as abortion on demand, homosexual marriage, euthanasia, etc. From my perspective, the culture of death into which the West is evolving is a greater threat to us than the islamofascists, who attack us from without.
In fact, from my perspective, it is the internalization of that culture of death that makes us vulnerable to the islamofascists. It is that embrace of death that makes individuals into cowards who will not defend their nation, nor permit others to do it for them. It is a culture that no longer distinguishes between the innocent life of an unborn child and the life of the incorrigible aggressor that lays down its defenses, to be overrun by another death cult.
So, to me, our defenses against the islamofascists are brittle and hollow if we succumb to our own cultural annihilation.
Much of Europe's pretty far gone in terms of embracing the culture of death. It is these same nations that also have no will to defend themselves, their culture, their civilization. In fact, they have repudiated their civilization, their history, in favor of their death cult.
The United States has followed a far way down the same road, but Republican presidencies that at least paid lip service to the Culture of Life have had some positive effect. The fact is, attitudes really have changed on some fundamental issues, the fact is that we are seeing a growing pro-life majority.
But if we say that that has in part occurred because of at least nominally pro-life Republican presidencies for all but eight of the last 25 years, then we must admit that a pro-death Republican presidency would tell in the other direction.
Like I said, MarkDel, most of us social conservatives will accept flawed Republican nominees. But if you read us out of the party by nominating someone who would be left of center in the DEMOCRAT Party on social issues, then don't expect that we're going to beg to be let back in the tent.
Folks often call the Republican Party the Stupid Party. There's a reason for that. In 1990, George the Father raised taxes, after telling us to read his lips.
But the Stupid Party is not the profoundly retarded party. The Stupid Party does learn, if with difficulty. What it learned in 1992 is that if you kick your anti-tax conservatives in the groin, they won't vote for you. Ever since, no Republican presidential candidate has suggested that raising taxes might be a part of his policy.
You gotta dance with the one(s) that brung ya.
That being said, although I'm not pleased that Mr. Bush didn't nominate someone who is clearly pro-life, I'm willing to refrain from judgment until things become clearer.
However, if either Mr. Roberts or Ms. Miers turns out to be squishy on life, well, then, I, and many other social conservatives will have to seriously rethink our allegiance to the Republican Party. Because of the unique texture of how this issue has played out in our society, pro-life Supremes are a non-negotiable element of our membership in the party. The only realistic chance we have of even returning the questions of life to the political realm are by changing the composition of the Supreme Court.
We've been burned by Mr. Reagan, with Justice O'Connor and Justice Kennedy, and Mr. Bush, pere, with Justice Souter, on this issue, and I gotta tell ya, 25 years in, we're unwilling to be fooled again.
sitetest
With all due respect, isn't "half a loaf better than none"?
Do you really think that it serves our country to have a highly visible conservative (like Judge Brown, who was my first choice BTW) smeared by the Democrats' self-annointed "morality police" (Kennedy, Biden, Reid, Schumer, Pelosi et al.) AND smeared 24/7 by the MSM?
Unfortunately, there are just too many RINOS in the current Senate for GWB to be CERTAIN that any nominee who has ruled or spoken or written about any issue "sacred" to the Democrats would survive the long-threatened "borking" process and ultimately be confirmed. IMHO, a certain "win" by GWB should be preferred to a "noble-but-oh-so-sad" LOSS.
And please don't forget that GWB has three more years in which to appoint Associate Justices who also respect the Constitution. I think the proper political action for us now is to support Republican Senators in every hotly-contested election in 2006.
If enough "Rats" are voted out of the Senate, we won't need the RINOS to "consent" to the type of Justice the country needs. Like Judge Brown.
Assuming she recommended Roberts, I'd guess that she recommended someone that she would be like???
NO one was bitching about Brown then.
Clinton got to nominate an ACLU-lawyer with the most extreme credentials imaginable without a peep from the GOP. The GOP is spineless.
Please cite one example of Bush doing anything like this. Pitbull, my arse.
I pretty much agree with that. It doesn't help that the msm takes sides in the deal.
I did not miss it. I hope he is right, and I hope you are right. However, why take the chance. Why not nominate someone where you know from their track record what you are going to get?
Because the Dems have made it clear that if they can find ANYTHING objectionable, they will beat that point until the candidate withdraws - and being an "originalist" is very objectionable to Dems.
Hence, the only option for a clean nomination is either (a) the candidate be extreme left-wing, or (b) a spotless unknown. Since the right-wing administration obviously can't go with (a), the only option is (b): a candidate that is well-known to the President ... and a total mystery to anyone else.
Put another way: she probably is a known Originalist ... known to the President, that is. So long as he knows who he is nominating, and so long as the opposition can't find anything to oppose, the right person becomes SCOTUS judge.
Because that's our best option right now.
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.