Posted on 07/09/2005 1:22:00 PM PDT by wagglebee
Exactly!
I a Bush appoints another gun grabber "collective rights" nitwit (like Gonzales or really anyone who is acceptable to Schumer) to the Supreme Court, I will never vote for another Republican. Ever. I will change my registration to Constitution or Libertarian.
There are a LOT of people who voted to put and keep Bush in office (or to keep Gore and Kerry out) specifically to protect the Second Ammendment. We have done everything we can to empower the Republicans so they can defend the Second Ammendment. If they throw all that work away with a single gun grabbing, Schumer approved, appointment to the Supreme Court, then to hell with them.
Also, if Bush and the Republicans put another gun grabber on the Supreme Court, and afterwards the NRA continues to support him and his party, I will immediately turn in my 30 year old NRA lifetime membership (plus endowment status), and the NRA will never get another single penny from me. Ever again.
I'm currently writing a letter to the NRA to make damn sure they know this, so they don't get wobbly in their pressure on Bush and the Republicans to appoint a pro Second Ammendment justice to the Supreme Court. I urge every other NRA member here (or just plain pro Second Ammendment) to do the same.
"I wonder if there is a way he could invite around 30 'Rat senators to the White House, keep them waiting in a room while he announces the nomination and then the remaining senators could go ahead and confirm before the 'Rats could make it back to the Capitol."
Interesting idea. At this point he has little to loss. Why not start playing games with them, just like they do to him.
Not sure if your tuned into the latest bad news coming out of Merry old England if not, and you desire to see the post:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1439795/posts?q=1&&page=1
Wow! You go, girl! I hear ya. Gun owners can make or break it for the Republicans in the next election. Just ask Al Gore.
Like I said, this issue is the line in the sand for many people. It's not a threat, just a simple fact.
Who died and made Schumer king?
That would be great! Surely the President isn't going to let them think they can influence his nominations. I hope they come out crying.
Hehe...it's going to be fun watching the rats go into coniptions.
Re: Senator Schumer's "important first step ..."
Yes, consultation is a good start. The "important next step" is to bend over for him and his ilk.
"Mr. President, this should be a one-way conversation. In other words, you tell them who you are appointing. Period. "
I think Bush is going is going to give the Senators four names:
Luttig
Brown
Cronyn
Estrada
He will tell the Senators to pick two and he expects an up or down vote. That's going to be the extent of it. They will then come back and suggest Gonzalez.
Bush expects loyalty. O'connor had no loyalty to Reagan. Gonzalez has loyalty to Bush. Think about that.
30,000 signatures of people who voted for Kerry and Gore are going to be real persuasive.
Gotta disagree. Meeting with any group of Senators is fine. Bush still gets to make the selection. That's what the Constitution says.
There are two more in my family that will (guarantee) switch if Gongales is nominated. The 30 yrs of working to put TRUE conservatives on the court is about,IMO, to go down. I believe GW will nominate him. Of course I have stated for 5 yrs that the SC will not be a true conservative court when GW leaves.
If Bush appoints a gun-grabber like Gonzales, I predict the Republicans will lose their Senate majority in 2006, and will lose seats in the house. After all, why bother to vote Republican if it just gets you more gun grabbers in power?
No they are not new and even the ancestor of the Democrat party, the OLD Republican party, was the home of treachery during the 1790s.
I have been reading the Nevin's books "The War for the Union" lately and am reminded once again of the poisonous conduct of the Copperheads (Democrats all) in the North. I like the action taken against Vallandigham when that traitor was arrested and escourted behind the enemy's lines where he was an embarrassment to his masters. Too bad we cannot do the same with Senator Fat Ass and his like.
Good point. The strictly North v. South interpretation of the Civil War obscures the fact that the Confederates and their treasonous allies in the North were ALL Democrats.
That is why I prefer to call it "The RAT Rebellion." Though when Lincoln ran in 1864 he did draw in the patriotic minority of Democrats into the Union Party. Of course, that gave us Johnson but who knew?
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.