and nominate the best person (without any regard for gender or race) for the job. But, I suspect he's already eliminated everyone having a Y chromosome.
Posted on 10/27/2005 5:54:48 AM PDT by SoFloFreeper
just breaking!!!!!!!!
IMO, this fight is 'the fight' of the Bush Presidency. One major push of the left has been to restructure this nation using judicial fiat, implementing what they could not via the polling booth.
Either we put an end to this, or our nation will simply cease to exist as it has. We will become Europe. Hell, sitting SCOTUS judges already use European case law to justify their determinations.
ME MUST FIGHT THIS FIGHT TOOTH AND NAIL!
IMO, this is the whole bag of marbles. If it take us five nominations to get a good conservative in there, then damn well use the five nominations, more if needed.
It's time for the idiot McCains et all of the right, to be outed for what they are. It's time to go to war. James Carville declared it for the left, and we're still not confronting them when it counts.
Give them hell George! You make a nomination of merit and we'll back you!
Being separated from his conservative base by the Miers nomination could have left the President a lame duck.
Now he has a new lease on life.
Let them smear as much as they want. I think the injury in the base is healed now and this is far more important to President Bush than worrying about liberals smearing him, they do it every second anyway.
The only problem with the strategy is that he drew too much fire from the conservatives on Miers. As someone else has pointed out, if he nominates a very strong conservative now, the immediate spin will be that Bush is being controlled by the "far right wing".
What he needs is another Roberts. Conservative, qualified, and "under the radar" enough to be hard to oppose. So MY prediction (which is probably unlike many other FReepers) is that the next nominee will not be a name with which we are familiar, but someone with outstanding scholarly credentials. Meaning: not a lot of rulings to examine, but a lot of conservative thought. That's harder to argue against because the nominee can demonstrate the necessary judicial intellectual rigor to be on the SCOTUS, but wouldn't have a record of actual pronouncements.
I therefore predict a conservative legal scholar from a law school, not a sitting judge.
OUCH!! Jeeze I'm a unmarried female too and I'm 45. I guess I should tell my boyfriend that I must be a Lesbian too. Since I must fit that stereotype. ;-) Heck then that includes most of the women in the big major cities of this country.
The Dems know there's now blood in the water and, hence, they're circling. They're very good at playing these fiascos to their full advantage.
Even though his support for Miers may have been clouded and based on a single issue (religion) and therefore wrong in principle - what he did as a Green Beret (see his tag line) in Vietnam deserves some respect.
You're right--though I didn't see the part about him being a Green Beret at the time. I just don't like the idea that anyone who opposes someone religious is therefore anti-religious, when in many cases nothing could be farther from the truth.
Case in point: even Gary probably opposed "Evangelical" Jimmy Carter.
Sorry, I meant 10:00 Eastern.
Sounds like a winner of a guy...and he's only 55? Good choice.
<<<
Unbelievable.
>>>.
Actually if you read the conservative columns, this was EXPECTED.
and nominate the best person (without any regard for gender or race) for the job. But, I suspect he's already eliminated everyone having a Y chromosome.
Right. It's rope a dope. Just like he's gonna spring them stockpiles of WMD on us any minute now. LOL. It wasn't rope a dope. It was a screwup. But true conservatives won the day; Bush bots lost.
Sorry if someone else mentioned this - just got on FR at work, & don't have time to read throught all of the posts. Is anybody else bothered by the timing of this...maybe it's a strategy to keep the media preoccupied when indictments come down?
The roll and lifetime term of SCOTUS is far more important than any single president.
When it was discovered she was for racial quotas, testified the NAACP was not political, praised the Ginsberg nomination, mocked the pro-life position which she'd apparently taken just years' earlier, said courts have to take on the roll of legislative bodies... it became clear the woman was MUSH. Her views were crafted to fit her audiences and so she would be a complete enigma on the court, fully open to outcome-based decisions.
If the next nominee is objectively qualified and shown to have a firm judicial philosophy of strict constructionism and judicial restraint, Bush's credibility will be affirmed.
Diane Sykes.
According to the Constitution, WE, the people, are boss. Unless we forget that and treat our politicians as Kings.
>> Just remember most of the people who opposed Miers were the same who opposed Roberts and oppose everything the Preisdent does. They hate him just as much as the kook left does which is why they sound more and more like them every day. <<
Bullsh!+. You just keep telling yourselves that so you don't have to listen to anyone. Yes, there were some people (Ann Coulter) who disliked Roberts because he was merely a "stealth" candidate. But his legal brilliance won over most of the skeptics. His approval:disapproval ratings were 61:19; nearly all of the 19% were hard-core leftists.
Compare to Miers. Her ratings were 28:34. That means that 33% of the country supported Roberts but rejected Miers. But no, nearly the entire National Review, Judge Bork, the League of Conservative Women... they all just exist to harrass Bush. Riiiight.
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.