Well, Ladies and Germs...

[FightingFalcon]

cameron said:

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.

Cameron -

Just as Battle Born says, this is the weakest point in the Administration's history. President Bush's poll ratings are at the lowest they have ever been thanks in large part to his incompetence re: Katrina. He does not have the political capital right now to be spending on judicial nominees because members of his own party wouldn't back him. You cannot be guaranteed of the votes necessary to confirm a conservative judge because of the many moderate Republicans in Congress. Senator McCain and numerous other Senators would not go along with something like Thomas. President Bush no longer has the control of his party, let alone controlling Democrats.

The president will ultimately re-bound from his lower numbers. A successful adoption of the constitution in Iraq will confirm the president's argument and boost his numbers tremendously. A failed vote will have the opposite effect. IMHO, President Bush is much more concerned about things in Iraq right now than judicial nominees. This is a critical moment not only in the history of Iraq but in the history of the Middle East. The appointment of one judge does not even come close to the importance of Iraq right now.

Furthermore, I am a moderate-conservative - I support putting anyone on the bench who believes and upholds the Constitution. I oppose every Idealogue (whether conservative or liberal) or anyone who would use their title as Justice of the SC to further their political beliefs.

The SC should not be about "liberal" or "conservative". It should be about who is qualified and who will uphold the principles of the Constitution of the United States of America. I take the Constitution very seriously - not something to be tossed aside for political beliefs.

[FightingFalcon]

battleborn said:

robertfollette said:

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

(Un)Fortunately, FDR tried that and was struck down by the SC.

Increasing the number of justices is illegal no matter how you slice it.

[dustdevil28]

One thing we should also remember is that Bush has described Miers as a person who will faithfully interpret the law and the constitution and not legistlate from the bench.

In that, Bush has covered all I care for in a justice for the most part.

[FightingFalcon]

battleborn said:

One thing we should also remember is that Bush has described Miers as a person who will faithfully interpret the law and the constitution and not legistlate from the bench.

In that, Bush has covered all I care for in a justice for the most part.

I agree 110%

Any judge who would use their position to further his or her political views is NOT what we need. We need impartial and objective Justices and Ms. Miers appears to be one.

[cameron]

Glad your a moderate try to remember moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.

[FightingFalcon]

cameron said:

Glad your a moderate try to remember moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.

Don't lecture me on being moderate in the pursuit of justice while I am a member of the United States Air Force. I know all about justice, integrity, loyalty and virtue.

Furthermore, moderates/Independents are the majority in America. I'm glad to be both of them.

[MARIO]

cameron said:

Glad your a moderate try to remember moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.

Isn't that also a Barry Goldwater quote?

I know he said that "Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice and tolerance in the face of tyranny is no virtue."

As for Miers, Bush is really starting to scare me. Should we take him on his word that she will strictly interpret the Constitution?

This woman seems to be all over the map in terms of her views. I'm going to reserve judgement for the time being. However, it doesn't look good at this point.

[tits]

I also like it that these people who are suppose to be judges do not stand a litmus test on moral issues. It is the Constitution that I want to have upheld. It is really scary to think that these could have been Kerrites.

Is it just me or does it appear that those people screaming the most about social inequality are those who are living on the dole. And the most racist bigoted people are the black leadership?

[FightingFalcon]

tits said:

I also like it that these people who are suppose to be judges do not stand a litmus test on moral issues. It is the Constitution that I want to have upheld. It is really scary to think that these could have been Kerrites.

Is it just me or does it appear that those people screaming the most about social inequality are those who are living on the dole. And the most racist bigoted people are the black leadership?

No, it's not just you. That's just the way it is.

[CommonSense]

mario said:

This woman seems to be all over the map in terms of her views. I'm going to reserve judgement for the time being. However, it doesn't look good at this point.

Agreed, I think the president may have thrown the red meat the Democratic party was hungry for. A mistake in my opinion.

[cameron]

FightingFalcon I had intended to give you a more in depth reply but at the moment I'm having computer trouble and my tech adviser [nephew] is currently training on Paris Island. Will give you that lecture asap.

[FightingFalcon]

cameron said:

FightingFalcon I had intended to give you a more in depth reply but at the moment I'm having computer trouble and my tech adviser [nephew] is currently training on Paris Island. Will give you that lecture asap.

Haha go right ahead - just be ready for the arse-beating that you're gonna get in return

[cameron]

First off that was not a lecture it was a friendly reminder. Second I am very proud of, and respectful of, your decision to serve our country. Let me take this opportunity to thank you from the very bottom of my heart much luv.

That being said the fact that you have decided to do your duty does not in all honesty give your political opinions more weight than anyone else's. To be honest with me it does, but I would not count on that with anyone else if I were you.

You seem to be suffering from the same misconceptions I ran into with Mateo. Just because a majority may agree with your views does not make them correct, or more valid. To argue that it does is called Argumentum ad numerum, it is a classic logical fallacy. You may be proud of being a moderate, the reality is that most people who call themselves moderates do so in order to split the difference between the two major party's. Since they pay little attention to, and are poorly informed on the issues. I will assume that is not why you are a moderate.

The weakest point in the history of this administration is now? Sorry not from where I sit. After the 2000 election Democrats made the claim, with some legitimacy even though I disagreed. That Bush would have to lead through consultation, and consensus with the loyal opposition. Considering the election was so close, the Democrats controlled the Senate, and his opponent had won the popular vote. Since then he has won re-election including the popular vote, add to that the Republicans have in every election cycle since picked up seats in the House and the Senate, regaining control of the Senate . So just by taking a casual look at the facts on the ground, they belie the supposition that the administration is weaker now than at any other time in it's history. The only polls that count are the ones taken on election day, and on the next election day coming up the Republicans, and by default the President are going to suffer from a self inflicted wound named Harriet Miers.

To a degree you are correct, in day to day politics perception is often reality. That perception is subjective not objective, and more often than not an incorrect view of reality. The debacle that was the mishandling of relief in the wake of Katrina is properly laid at the feet of what is widely known to be even before Katrina the inept and corrupt state and local governments of Louisiana. FEMA is not nor was it ever intended to be a large organization of first responders. What it actually is, and has always been is a small group of people with access to large sums of federal money and connections. Meant to supplement the state and local efforts of first responders. That the moonbats with plenty of help from MSM was to a degree successful in convincing the general public, that the failure was a national failure and not a local one. Bush was correctly perceived to be weakened. There was similar carping by the MSM after Andrew, not to the same degree after all Clinton was their guy, but these things are historically really nothing more than blips on the political radar screen that don't last long. The mistake Bush made was to play into this perception by acting as though he had been weakened giving the idea creditability. Is he still the President? Are there fewer Republicans in the House or Senate? Is he in reality any weaker in real terms now than before, NO.

Bush played right into the hands of his political enemies by acting as though he was coming from a position of weakness rather than acting from a position of strength. In the process doing serious damage to himself, and the Republican party. Damage that is more than a subjective view of reality, but on the ground for real damage. Read my lips, he broke a campaign promise he made to his core supporters. There has never been a politician or party that has survived unpunished for acts that are perceived by your core supporters as betrayal.

I am very glad to hear that you believe that Justices of the Supreme Court should uphold the principles of the Constitution of the United States. That is what this fight is over, and what is all about. That is why the Presidents core supporters are so pissed off, because that is what we believe as well.
Right now we have on the Supreme Court liberal Justices who do not hold that view. Bryer, Ginsburg, heck

Justice Kennedy is siting foreign laws in his opinions and vigorously defends his use of foreign laws and constitutions to interpret U.S. laws and our Constitution.

Conservatives who hold our Constitution to be the highest law of land are absolutely beside themselves with alarm over this liberal idiocy. As viewed by us conservatives, this lack of respect for our Constitution is so dangerous it threatens the very corner stone, and therefore the continued existence of our Republic. Conservatives don't want ideologues what we want are Justices that will faithfully abide by the Constitution of the United States period.

The fact that you are most likely ignorant of this latest trend in liberal jurisprudence is the very same reason why most conservatives think this would be a good fight to have. Knowing full well the Democrats would get beat like a drum if this knowledge became widely known. The Democrats are aware of their weakness on this as well. That is why they try to portray it as a fight against Conservative ideologues who would over turn Roe. To be honest I am opposed to Roe not because I am against abortion, but because it is not in the constitution pro or con. Roe is bad law the Court over stepped it's authority and entered the political policy realm, and decided for one side of the political debate over the other. That being said I can live with it. What I can not live with is Justices who view themselves as legal priests who consult the holly relic and interpret what is in the ether surrounding the penumbra of the Constitution. It is written in English we can all read it. What it means and was meant to mean is spelled out in black and white in the text ,and if you are unsure try reading the federalist papers . It was the explanation and arguments made for it's adoption in the first place.

The argument that the Constitution was written in the 1800's and needs to be interpreted as a "living document" in order to have relevance in today’s world is a load of horse shit. The broad principles laid out in the Constitution are meant to be universal and always applicable. If something should come up that is not covered there is a mechanism built into the Constitution for amending it. The living document bullshit is a modern legal theory concocted out of thin air to excuse the fact that any fair reading of the document would lead to the conclusion the abortion isn't in there.

Bush's core supporters asked for and were given assurances by Bush in the last election that come hail or high water he would appoint known quantities to the Supreme Court. The reason for getting these assurances were due to the fact that without appointing known quantities is how we ended up with idiots like Souter and Kennedy being appointed by Republicans in the first place. How many conservatives do you think the Democrats have accidentally appointed to the Court? We truly are living in an Orwellian world when those who would interpret the constitution according to it's text are portrayed as ideologues and those who do not feel bound by the actual text of the document are portrayed as moderates.

The timing of the fight over the courts would have been perfect. The Rinos within the Republican party were cowed by the fact that the overwhelming number of Republican supporters threatened retribution to those that picked a fight with the administration over nominee’s. So much so that when they flexed their muscle (money) even Specter the Senator that betrayed Bork and set this politicization of court nominee’s into motion in the first place, was cowed into giving us his word he would not oppose in any way Bush's nominee’s, before the party's money men would allow him to take the Chairmanship of the Judicial committee. That is how serious conservatives view this. So we may have lost Chaffee, Snow and that other female northeastern Rino in a fight, that is still leaves a majority. Any Republican with Presidential ambitions would have had no choice i.e. McCain. After the blood bath the President would have been seen to have prevailed, and nothing gives the perception of strength like a hard fought victory. Then as you said the news from Iraq, and the successful elections there going into the 06 election season here. Would have the Republicans sitting in the cat birds seat. Instead they are perceived by friend and foe alike to be weak. With every popular major component that constitutes the Republican party, feeling either betrayed or let down. From fiscal conservative, to those who view border security as paramount, to those who have been the most stalwart supporters of Republicans for the past 30 years. The ones who view court appointments as paramount, all of these factions of the Republican party are very unhappy with Republican politicians. The Republicans in my opinion are going to loose in the upcoming 06 elections, not because of any thing to do with Democrats, but because they keep f-ing their core supporters. Bush committed political suicide thus creating an opening for a Clinton win in 08, now a real possibility.

As for kicking my arse you may want to re-think that, and decide to have a respectful dialogue of point, and counter-point instead. In a verbal knife fight you can aim for my arse if you want, as for me I aim for the jugular.

[FightingFalcon]

Thanks for the well thought out (if not lengthy ) post Cameron. I'll respond tomorrow when I have more time.

[tits]

Cameron said:

First off that was not a lecture it was a friendly reminder. ..for me I aim for the jugular.

I voted for Bush because of the abortion issue. I am no lawyer, but I do know how to research. My two law courses in college only taught me how to search.

Basically, it seems that since the beginning, Judges have attempt to interpret the law. Sources such as FindLaw and the Cornell University web pages offer excellent sources for the Constitutional Law as well as all the challenges and Federal Rulings.

The abortion issue really angers me because it is now used as the litmus test by the liberals. After observing an abortion of a 14 week old fetus in medical physiology, I came to fully understand it as murder. In the "old days" of the West and Colonial times, it was legal to abort a "prequickening" fetus. It was believed that the quickening (roughly 10 weeks) was the point that "God breathed life" into the child. However with modern science we have been able to save a 20 week old preemie. I just know that sometime during the next few years, concrete evidence will emerge that abortion during the second and third trimesters is murder.

The stupid thing is that so many Americans are ignorant and proud of it. The argument that: "it is a woman's body and she has the right to do with it as she wants" Is as big a lie as anything Joseph Goebbels' machine ever published. I have wanted to counter it with: "if a man get horny on a date and rapes his date, it is his right because it is his body."

The SCOTUS has been interpreting the Constitution since the 1814 MARSHALL McCulloch v Maryland limiting the State's right to regulate taxes.