WOOT! You think a Republican President might actually nominate a conservative this time around?
Posted on 10/27/2005 5:54:48 AM PDT by SoFloFreeper
just breaking!!!!!!!!
five=give
I=I'll
Coffee break time.....sorry for typos...
JRB never pulled her name out of contention. That false story has been debunked.
Control isn't an issue with me. I just want what is best for my country. I have certain values that I look for in the person I give my vote to but you didn't answer my question . If the "center" keeps pulling away from the right and embraces the left , after a period of time, what will be different between either party?
Well said. The charge Miers was borked is over-the-top, hyperbolic nonsense and NOTHING more. Frankly, it's an insulting affront to the far more vicious slings and arrows and extraordinary humiliation endured by Bork and Thomas.
Oh puhleeze....Comments like the above were so few and far between, I never saw them. Some did question the fact she is single and stated disappointment about her age, when her candidacy was first announced, but soon after such criticisms were rare. Most people argued against her nomination reasonably and fairly and I am tired of their arguments being so grossly mischaracteized.
Were talking points about Bill Kristol distributed for use today?
Oh! OK>>>>> For the answer to that, you have to understand the historical pendulum that continues to swing back and forth. The two parties, and yes we have a two party system because it works and we don't want to change it. Anyway the two parties actually do seem similar at different times in the cycle that repeats, over and over again.
When they get too close, they get ragged by their base and move dramatically away from each other to add distance. But because of coalition building, one party always tries to steal some from the other. When they need swing voters they tend to merge a bit to get them. "Campaign center and govern right". That is the norm. Then they move apart.
It is all about winning.
Politics and principles do not ever mix well together. This is why some of the more political savvy folks around here get so irritated with what we call the unappeasable. So you call us Bush bots, or whatever.
It's frustrating to see what has happened here, and really this entire year has been a mess. All of it is unnecessary and should not happen, but it has happened time and time again and will in the future.
I've had my say, and got it all out of my system, which was necessary for my blood pressure. :-)
You will never hear this from pundits, because they make their money selling books and making speeches. If they layed it all out on the table, it would all be so simple and they would be out of a job!
Politics is a dance, and as I said earlier, a art form. It is the art of winning and losing while compromising and giving and taking.
Power goes to the one that hold the political capital.
These pundits I watch, and I see Krauthammer and Ingram doing their thing on FOX right now, are largely responsible for the art of politics to become warfare which is the result of a political failure. This sells more books and gets more appearance fees and speeches.
It is how the game is played these days. It is why Bush appears to have miscalculated the reaction. Who the hell knows what these idiots will do?
I quit buyin their books when I figured this new game out.
You can't have 200 William Buckley's out there beating on you to sell books and appearances, and be able to please them.
Bush does not try to do that, and he should not! A few of them is one thing, but we are beyond a few. Combined with the twenty four hour news cycle and televised senate and house, we have altered the politics.
Just going to have to learn to accept it if you are going to go into this business. But it does not mean I have to like it, and Harriet Miers deserved better. I will not forget what they did. Nor will others that I know are just as upset about this as I am.
Funny thing, we are all over 50 and pushin 60 for the most part. Myself included.
Adams, stop defending the sliming of Miers. You've been at it, all day.
Any rational human being who read this forum over the last two weeks saw the posts against her.
It's over now, but don't try to do damage control. It demeans you and makes you look like a fool.
Let's just go on.
It is not just how one views the original Constitution and Amendments but how one views all the caselaw since then - much of which is based on a liberal interpretation, some seeming to create "law" out of thin air.
IMHO, a moderate would look at all of it as settled law whereas a liberal would look at all of it all as good suggestions.
But a conservative would go back to the original law and make sure everything in between is not merely a house of cards. And if it is, his effort would be to reverse or replace the bad caselaw.
McCain was also showing himself as the true control of the Senate (and not Frist) - positioning himself for 2008 I suspect.
How dare you. Miers was not "slimed." A small minority made over the top remarks and their remarks were not defended by me. Most people fairly argued against her nomination.
You however, have been "sliming" the people opposed to her nomination not only ALL day today, but for the past three weeks and rationalizing and excusing your own poor behavior to boot.
Your side lost. Get over it.
Now there's a treasure trove of keywords.
I kinda like "OYYOYYOYYOYYOYYOYYOY". What in tarnations does that mean?!?
I agree with all that in principle, but in practice it takes a very unusual or special case to go back and reverse law. There is some precedent for it, but it takes years and years, plus a really ideal case that is not to complicated. But most important of all, you must have teamwork on the bench.
I'd love to see it done, but that job fall to Roberts now. it is he who can accept this case and build consensus on the bench to do it.
If anyone here reading what I just wrote and does not understand that Bush was trying to do exactly that by putting Miers in as a supporting roll for Roberts, then they don't understand George Bush!
This is why I argued for Miers and downplayed Janice and some of the others. I felt they would be prima donna's and not play team work as Scalia, Thomas and now Rhenquist's replacement Roberts will do.
This teamwork is needed to reverse case law. if it is not there, like it was in the Warren court and others, the court cannot make radical changes at all.
That was my hope for Miers......But........
whatever.....You try and sometimes you lose, even for the wrong reasons when you play this game of politics.
Jewish reference I think...
The problem is the bad caselaw and as you say it takes a consensus of the Court to fix it. It'll be decades because there's so much bad law to be fixed...
Probably. Like as in Oi vay, or Oi. (Yiddish)
So, how high you think this thread count can go before it explodes into a million pieces?
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.