Debates
05 Oct 05
05 Oct 05
Originally posted by sasquatch672It's frightening to realize, as referenced by the author of that piece, how many more republicans there are that believe Bush is nowhere near being conservative enough. That I simply can't understand. I mean who do those people want as President or as a Supreme Court Justice???
From Capitol Hill Blue
The Rant
A Cardboard Cowboy
By DOUG THOMPSON
Oct 5, 2005, 06:53
George W. Bush knows he’s in trouble when even the radical right turns on him like a rabid dog.
The echoes from a rare Presidential press conference had not yet died before the always-contentious conservatives descended on Bush like iguanas in ...[text shortened]... others had, in the end, no one left to blame but himself.
© Copyright 2005 Capitol Hill Blue
05 Oct 05
Originally posted by sasquatch672I'd like to know who some of the "strict constitutionalists" would nominate for the court. I can't even imagine.
I didn't even think of that. You're right. That is scary. They are the people that need to be shoved back in the closet. I can see distancing yourself from Dubya because of the deficit, but these yo-yo's who want a medieval Supreme Court justice - get the hell out of my country.
I've read many complaints that some conservatives were going to be very upset if Bush nominated the current Atty General Gonzalez. Now IMO that's a pretty conservative guy. But apparently not conservative enough for oh so many of our Republican friends around the USA.
05 Oct 05
Originally posted by wibSheez. Compared to Bush, even Reagan starts to look like a moderate. To the right of Bush are the Christian Fascists. It is truly horrifying to observe those folks having influence in public policy.
It's frightening to realize, as referenced by the author of that piece, how many more republicans there are that believe Bush is nowhere near being conservative enough. That I simply can't understand. I mean who do those people want as President or as a Supreme Court Justice???
As much as I despise the views of Roberts, he is the most highly qualified Supreme Court nominee in a long time. Miers, on the other hand, has less experience than even Thomas. It is a poor practice to confirm justices who lack judicial experience.
Earl Warren, who was on of the least qualified liberal justices at least served as Attorney General for California, and thus had Federal Court experience as a lawyer. The current erosion of our fundamental liberties, which the Warren Court supported well, is facilitated by some of the weaknesses of the Court's administration of justice under his leadership. We are in for hard times as Miers and Thomas essay more and more decisions, but might take perverse comfort in the anticipation that their lack of experience will result in flawed opinions that may become easier to overturn if the US ever returns to sanity.
05 Oct 05
Originally posted by WulebgrNobody "overturns" decisions made by the Supreme Court.
Sheez. Compared to Bush, even Reagan starts to look like a moderate. To the right of Bush are the Christian Fascists. It is truly horrifying to observe those folks having influence in public policy.
As much as I despise the views of Roberts, he is the most highly qualified Supreme Court nominee in a long time. Miers, on the other hand, has less experience ...[text shortened]... l result in flawed opinions that may become easier to overturn if the US ever returns to sanity.
That's what makes them Supreme.
OK .. maybe the Joint Chiefs of Staff could do it if they decided to try.
05 Oct 05
Originally posted by sasquatch672For who???
Trent Lott came down today and said there were nominees alot more qualified that Meier for the Supreme Court. Trent Lott used to be Bush's hatchet man on the Hill.
It looks like alot of Republican leaders that drank the Bush Kool Aid are finally having it wear off. I wonder how long it will take for the ordinary people who voted for Bush to realize that the Republican leadership is abandoning Bush, and that they should do the same.
Cheney?
Kerry?
He's a lame-duck now, he can't run for re-election anyway. Cheney can't run .. way to old and couldn't win regardless. He'll have a hard time getting anything done because everyone else (Congress) IS running for re-election.
Let's hope the Democrats can get it together in time for 2008 and come up with a VIABLE candidate. Right now we have basicly one political Party in a dominate position and the other .. the Democrats stuck in the whining mode, unable or unwilling to come up with a reasonable alternative.
Our system works a lot better when the two main political Parties are near equal in power (counter-balance). It's a shame the Democrats have imploded and gone 'Euro' on us .. the American people will never buy that IMO.
05 Oct 05
Originally posted by wibWell, when it came to the Geneva Convention, Gonzalez was anything but a 'strict constructionist'; he took an interpretative approach to that document, and his attitude toward torturing detainees could be described as decidedly liberal (in the true sense of the word). 😕
I'd like to know who some of the "strict constitutionalists" would nominate for the court. I can't even imagine.
I've read many complaints that some conservatives were going to be very upset if Bush nominated the current Atty General Gonzalez. Now IMO that's a pretty conservative guy. But apparently not conservative enough for oh so many of our Republican friends around the USA.
