I knew it!!!!
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/10/27/D8DGDFR00.html
Next, we'll see Janice Rogers Brown nominated. And if I'm right about that: It'll be Condi for '08.
Printable View
I knew it!!!!
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/10/27/D8DGDFR00.html
Next, we'll see Janice Rogers Brown nominated. And if I'm right about that: It'll be Condi for '08.
If she couldn't take the pressure it's certainly for the best.
All, right, bring on Brown! Or any other good conservative.
Crazed Rabbit
Is there any chance that someone might get nominated to the Supreme court on the basis of being a good judge do you think? Rather than on their political views?
Its weird that we get bitter attacks on a "political" supreme court from a certain wing of the political spectrum, and then at nomination time the same gallery choruses "stuff your legal ability, what's your view on gays?"
Who are you talking about? I can't think of anyone who would do that.Quote:
Is there any chance that someone might get nominated to the Supreme court on the basis of being a good judge do you think? Rather than on their political views?
Its weird that we get bitter attacks on a "political" supreme court from a certain wing of the political spectrum, and then at nomination time the same gallery choruses "stuff your legal ability, what's your view on gays?"
By conservative I meant constructionist, one who rules based on what the constitution says, not what they think is right. It just so happens most are conservative politically.Quote:
Is there any chance that someone might get nominated to the Supreme court on the basis of being a good judge do you think? Rather than on their political views?
Crazed Rabbit
I'm guessing that was sarcasm, but just in case, more or less at random (in fact its the Times)...Quote:
Who are you talking about? I can't think of anyone who would do that
Quote:
Ms Miers had made her name in the Lone Star State, but has done little to impress the legal establishment and still less to appeal to the Republican Right.
They had hoped for someone with a clear anti-abortion record in the hope that the Supreme Court will move to the Right and eventually overturn the 1973 Roe v Wade case setting out the legal right for abortion.
Doubt was cast over Ms Miers's conservative credentials when it emerged that in 1988 she donated $1,000 to the presidential campaign of Al Gore, the Democratic candidate.
Actually this is not a coincidence. In order to interpret a 200 year old document in that rather peculiar way you would have to be extremely (small c) conservative, in the true sense of the word.Quote:
By conservative I meant constructionist, one who rules based on what the constitution says, not what they think is right. IT just so happens most are conservative politically
Good. Next!~:)
I could never understand for sure whether the media just doesnt understand conservatives or are being deliberately misleading with this type of reporting. Sure, there are some out there who want to make nominations based on specific issues only- but it hasnt been me, nor has it been any conservative pundit that Im familiar with. It wasnt the fact that we didnt know her abortion views that we didnt like her- it was that she was a crony and she had no constitutional background. We had no idea on whether she would rule on the actual Constitution, or just make crap up like Breyer- other than Bush saying 'trust me'.Quote:
Ms Miers had made her name in the Lone Star State, but has done little to impress the legal establishment and still less to appeal to the Republican Right.
They had hoped for someone with a clear anti-abortion record in the hope that the Supreme Court will move to the Right and eventually overturn the 1973 Roe v Wade case setting out the legal right for abortion.
Doubt was cast over Ms Miers's conservative credentials when it emerged that in 1988 she donated $1,000 to the presidential campaign of Al Gore, the Democratic candidate.
I've been saying that since before Roberts. ~:)Quote:
All, right, bring on Brown!
Well Xiahou, on the cronyism, and on the never having been a judge, I entirely agree with you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by English assassin
Actually, I think that's what Roberts was. Despite his lack of much bench experience the man was clearly an extremely capable attorney and legal scholar. The relative lack of protest at his nomination was due to his abilities and the fact that most people believed he would rule fairly on issues without regard to political bias.
I don't think it will be Brown. Out of the names that are now being thrown around she is the most outspoken conservative, both politically and judicially, and would be the least palatable to Democrats and center leaning voters. For that reason, she is probably the only nominee that the Dems would be able to successfully filibuster without being accused of useless obstructionism.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
Nope, I think W will go with somebody a little less risky here.
Isn't that an oxymoron? ~DQuote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
Don't celebrate yet. Just because miers is gone dosen't mean that bush won't find some just as bad.
Agreed. Roberts would be a good too.Quote:
All, right, bring on Brown!
don't get your hopes up yet. It's all for nothing if we get another weak, incompetent excuse for a conservative.Quote:
I knew it!!!!
It's not as if Bush has any lack of cronies.
:hide:
Not with the folks now in charge of our govt. This is the most partisan bunch I've ever seen. This is GOP Total War.Quote:
Originally Posted by English assassin
The hypocrisy has been hilarious. What I especially have enjoyed is the two faced approach that reminded me of Arafat making statements to the world that said one thing, then to Palestinians that said another. In this case we had comments about how Miers religious views would assure that she voted right. On the other hand, religion was not supposed to be an issue and she would not be an activist judge etc.Quote:
Its weird that we get bitter attacks on a "political" supreme court from a certain wing of the political spectrum, and then at nomination time the same gallery choruses "stuff your legal ability, what's your view on gays?"
Quote:
Not with the folks now in charge of our govt. This is the most partisan bunch I've ever seen. This is GOP Total War.
Yeah no partisanship during the Clinton years. LOL. Just let a former head council for the ACLU be appointed to SCOTUS. And the republicans affirmed the nomination.
I hear Mike Brown needs a job ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemurmania
LOL
Well, according to Bush he did do 'a heck of a job'.
Isn't that the Brown they were talking about. ~DQuote:
Originally Posted by Lemurmania
No. It's redundant.Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Harvest
No, we just use a trick from the dem's bag and call them racist and sexist.Quote:
For that reason, she is probably the only nominee that the Dems would be able to successfully filibuster without being accused of useless obstructionism.
Crazed Rabbit
I am throwing up the BS flag here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Goofball
Read this post:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...84&postcount=1
Again, as the great Rush wrote: It's a crackdown, not a crack-up.
We are going to nominate someon MORE conservative. Not someone more "safe". Boy do you have your perspective of our priorities wrong.
They would be destroyed if they tried to filibuster Janice Rogers Brown. She's a minority, a female, was a single mother, grew up poor and was a Supreme Court justice in California. Plus- they already confirmed her for the federal bench. Democrats would go down in flames if they filibustered her.Quote:
Originally Posted by Goofball
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
Exactly.
So there.
This is a net positive, but I am a bit disappointed in the ugly attacks against Mrs. Miers by conservatives. She may not have been the best choice, but she isnt a bad person.
Predicting this sort of thing is always difficult.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
I've stated my reasons for my opinion, and you've stated yours. Both have merit.
I guess we'll just have to wait and see...
Well, here's hoping she gets the nomination so we can see who's right. ~D
*scratches head and wonders at the tricky conservative footwork that just tricked him into rooting for Janice Brown to be nominated to the SC*Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
~:eek: