|
|
Post by 101ABN on Oct 3, 2005 18:00:38 GMT -8
Any thoughts on GWB's latest Supreme Court nominee?
|
|
|
|
Post by cameron on Oct 3, 2005 20:06:36 GMT -8
Seriously disappointed  Conservatives have been burned badly by stealth candidates in the past, Souter comes to mind. I don't think Julie Myers would have been nominated if Bush's poll numbers were better than what they are, that being said is it worth an inter-party fight? Personally I supported Bush for two reasons, the war in Iraq, and judicial nominees. Conservatives have plenty to be unhappy about. Congressional spending, inept border security, and now a broken campaign promise to nominate known quantities, conservative judges in the mold of Scalia and Thomas. To say I am a little annoyed would be an understatement. Still the overwhelming priority for me has always been the war, and I support the war unwaveringly, and despite what is currently the conventional wisdom, I believe the war is going well. Mistakes have been made, but the over all strategy is sound. I was of the opinion it was a mistake to leave Saddam in power after the first gulf war, and morally reprehensible to encourage Iraqis to rise up in revolt then do nothing to support them while Saddam murdered them. I was of the opinion we would eventually be forced to take the actions we did even before 911. Then after 911 I could see no way around the need to remove Saddam from the picture. I just simply do not trust the Democrats to prosecute the war. Right now we are at an important juncture with the referendum on an Iraqis constitution this month, and a general election in December. An inter-party fight would weaken the Republicans, and benefit the Democrats. I am a conservative not a Republican, but because of the war I am opposed to an inter-party fight at the moment. However once Iraq is stabilized and an established democratic nation. It will be time to wash. |
|
|
|
Post by FightingFalcon on Oct 4, 2005 1:44:21 GMT -8
Any thoughts on GWB's latest Supreme Court nominee? As I said on THC, it's a good political move. The Democrats can't oppose her and Republicans should be satisfied with her because President Bush would never choose a liberal for the extremely important position of Supreme Court Justice. From what I've read she sounds like a moderate so she gets thumbs up from me. |
|
|
|
Post by Remey688 on Oct 4, 2005 3:47:46 GMT -8
Any thoughts on GWB's latest Supreme Court nominee? As I said on THC, it's a good political move. The Democrats can't oppose her and Republicans should be satisfied with her because President Bush would never choose a liberal for the extremely important position of Supreme Court Justice. From what I've read she sounds like a moderate so she gets thumbs up from me. The Conservative wing of the party were promised a Scallia like appointment! |
|
|
|
Post by dustdevil28 on Oct 4, 2005 3:58:56 GMT -8
I'm a bit surprised that she has never served as a judge before, but she was Pres of the Texas bar so I guess that should give her a range of expertise on the law.
|
|
|
|
Post by FightingFalcon on Oct 4, 2005 4:45:24 GMT -8
I'm a bit surprised that she has never served as a judge before, but she was Pres of the Texas bar so I guess that should give her a range of expertise on the law. As pointed out by 101 on THC, our former Chief Justice never served as a judge either. |
|
|
|
Post by FightingFalcon on Oct 4, 2005 4:48:50 GMT -8
As I said on THC, it's a good political move. The Democrats can't oppose her and Republicans should be satisfied with her because President Bush would never choose a liberal for the extremely important position of Supreme Court Justice. From what I've read she sounds like a moderate so she gets thumbs up from me. The Conservative wing of the party were promised a Scallia like appointment! The Bush Administration is way too weak right now to nominate someone as far-right as Thomas or Scalia. They would have no hope of getting such a nomination through Congress and they know it. The Bush Administration does not have the strength or the energy to fight a long battle over this. What was once seen as an opportunity for Bush (that is, being able to re-shape the court), is now a struggle. His only choice was to nominate someone who was out of the mainstream and would be accepted by Democrats. |
|
|
|
Post by cameron on Oct 4, 2005 15:16:59 GMT -8
Nonsense, the President gets to nominate whomever he pleases. Republicans and conservatives have fought for years ever since Bork to get to the position of strength they are now in vis-a-vis SCOTUS nominee's. If you can't nominate a conservative with 55 votes in the Senate then you never can.
PS Clinton had no trouble nominating a far-left Ginsburg.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sailor on Oct 4, 2005 15:55:11 GMT -8
There's always a chance that GWB could get a THIRD chance to appoint someone to the Court.
John Paul Stevens (Leftwing Loon) is 85 years old. While he looks hale and hearty now, he is of an age where his health could collapse quickly.
If Miers doesn't make it through GW could always fall back on Janice Rogers Brown.
|
|
|
|
Post by cameron on Oct 4, 2005 16:47:03 GMT -8
GW could always fall back on Janice Rogers Brown.  |
|
|
|
Post by 101ABN on Oct 4, 2005 18:41:28 GMT -8
"If Miers doesn't make it through GW could always fall back on Janice Rogers Brown. "
I've got to wonder if that isn't the plan all along. Poor Harriet gets spitted and roasted in the confirmation hearings, the Dems look like total assholes for Borking her, she tearfully withdraws her nomination, and Dubya comes back with his real first choice, aka J.R. Brown. Now they don't dare come out sick on her because even the MSM will be averse to supporting the lynching of a self-made black woman who is imminently qualified for the position.
|
|
|
|
Post by cameron on Oct 4, 2005 19:11:23 GMT -8
How very Machiavellian to bad it isn't the case, Myers will be confirmed. Bush didn't just catch conservatives off guard, but he has the Dems flat footed, and back on their heels as well. Unless there is some sort of scandal in her past, or something the loony left can convince the general public of that is disqualifying, she is a lock to be confirmed. Unless conservatives team up with the loony left to defeat her, and that just is not in the cards.
|
|
|
|
Post by cameron on Oct 4, 2005 20:05:16 GMT -8
FightingFalcon since when has it been out of the mainstream to interpret the constitution for what it actually says and means? Your analysis is exactly what I am talking about. You think it is out of the mainstream if for no other reason than the message that was sent by this pick. The Democrats would have lost the fight and would have looked real bad doing so. That is one of the major reasons why conservatives are seriously pissed. By the by the White House is trying to mollify conservatives by reassuring us she will be a conservative jurist. We are still pissed because of the message that is sent by a stealth candidate conservative or not. You are a perfect example of why. Conservatives have been working very hard for more than twenty years to get to this moment in time, then to have Bush loose his nerve. There has been no bigger defender of Bush than me. I gave him the benefit of the doubt with Roberts. This is a fight that if not fought will be lost. Bush blew it.
|
|
|
|
Post by dustdevil28 on Oct 5, 2005 4:22:10 GMT -8
There's always a chance that GWB could get a THIRD chance to appoint someone to the Court. John Paul Stevens (Leftwing Loon) is 85 years old. While he looks hale and hearty now, he is of an age where his health could collapse quickly. If Miers doesn't make it through GW could always fall back on Janice Rogers Brown. Ha, That would be funny to see Bush get get a third pick just to hear the left moan about it. I saw some idiot on THC state that the next Dem Presidient should make the court larger to counter Bush's appointees Ya, I'm sure that would go over well |
|
|
|
Post by dustdevil28 on Oct 5, 2005 4:24:30 GMT -8
Nonsense, the President gets to nominate whomever he pleases. Republicans and conservatives have fought for years ever since Bork to get to the position of strength they are now in vis-a-vis SCOTUS nominee's. If you can't nominate a conservative with 55 votes in the Senate then you never can. PS Clinton had no trouble nominating a far-left Ginsburg. Cameron, They could fillibuster couldn't they? With FEMA and the Iraq war continuing to weaken the administration it would be best just to conclude this business and put a sound reasonible person on the bench. |
|
