Bush is a sellout and a pussy, and no longer has my support!!

[Mike AI]

Originally Posted by Trev

Gosh you Einstein's caught me redhanded trying to pass off Pat's column as mine!!

You guys are regular Sherlock Holmes!

[Dravyk]

Mike so wanted to be a Watergate burgler.

[Trev]

Originally Posted by Mike AI

Gosh you Einstein's caught me redhanded trying to pass off Pat's column as mine!!

You guys are regular Sherlock Holmes!

Erm.. no, I didn't Sarettah did. I thought it was a good burn so I posted it as such. What's wrong Mike - is you're money belt too tight?

[sarettah]

Originally Posted by Mike AI

Gosh you Einstein's caught me redhanded trying to pass off Pat's column as mine!!

You guys are regular Sherlock Holmes!

And if anyone else had done that you would have been all over their ass.

Just so happened I had the Buchanan column open and was reading it just before I read your post.

[gold4dinar]

http://www.borowitzreport.com/

BUSH EMBARKS ON CROSS-COUNTRY MOTORCADE TO PROMOTE LESS DRIVING 200-Vehicle Convoy to Send Message of Conservation, President Says Hoping to send a powerful message about energy conservation, President George W. Bush said today that he would embark on an historic cross-country motorcade to promote less driving.

“The time has come for the American people to wean themselves from their dependence on foreign oil, and I intend to get behind the wheel myself to send that message,” Mr. Bush told reporters at the White House today.

Taking a hands-on role in the symbolic odyssey, Mr. Bush said that he would pilot the lead car in the motorcade, a Ford F250 pickup that he uses to drive around his ranch in Crawford, Texas.

The president said that he personally ordered a ranch hand to drive the pickup truck from Crawford to Washington, D.C. so that Mr. Bush would have it in time for the historic journey.

Mr. Bush added that in the event a national security emergency should require him to leave his energy conservation tour before it is complete, Air Force One will hover over the motorcade at all times, refueling in midair.

While some skeptics wondered whether Mr. Bush’s cross-country trek would succeed in convincing Americans to drive less, it has already inspired one citizen to do so, as Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Tex) today volunteered to cancel his trip to Texas to stand trial on conspiracy charges.

“I asked myself, ‘Is this trip necessary?’ and I decided it wasn’t,” Rep. DeLay said.

Elsewhere, First Lady Laura Bush said she would appear on “Extreme Makeover: Home Edition,” while Vice President Dick Cheney said he would appear on “Lost.”

[TheEnforcer]

Originally Posted by Mike AI

What is depressing here is not what the nomination tells us of her, but what it tells us of the president who appointed her. For in selecting her, Bush capitulated to the diversity-mongers, used a critical Supreme Court seat to reward a crony, and revealed that he lacks the desire to engage the Senate in fierce combat to carry out his now-suspect commitment to remake the court in the image of Scalia and Thomas. In picking her, Bush ran from a fight. The conservative movement has been had -- and not for the first time by a president by the name of Bush.

I do understand your frustration Mike but given that she doesn't have a paper trail you can't say for certain she won't be a good judge in your eyes when all is said and done. Look at one of the pet causes that conservatives (again, not necessarily your casue but definately a conservative one) are very, very adamant about like abortion. That article shows that she is very likely to vote as conservatives want on the issue when it comes up. Because she's his personal lawyer Bush may know her positions on isses better than anyone else and knows down the road she'll be a reliably conservative judge but also someone that won't have a hard time getting through the confirmation process. I had no problem with the senate confirming chief judge Roberts and my two dem senators voted for him. Maybe this woman won't be as bad as you think.

[*KK*]

I think that perhaps in some cases the term conservative is being misused here. A political conservative is one thing, a conservative Supreme Court is something else entirely.

A conservative Supreme Court is one that tends to rely on precedent to define its rulings. It really has little to do with the political leanings of the members on the court.

A liberal court, on the other hand, tends to create "new" law with its rulings. A liberal court would be more likely to decide that something like the Miller test or Roe v Wade was a bad precedent and want to overturn those rulings.

Just thought I'd bring up this point.

[Winetalk.com]

Originally Posted by *KK*

A liberal court would be more likely to decide that something like the Miller test or Roe v Wade was a bad precedent and want to overturn those rulings.

I want the same drugs she is getting!

[Nickatilynx]

Originally Posted by Winetalk.com

I want the same drugs she is getting!

I'll have some oral contraceptives and tylenol fedexed to you immediately

[PornoDoggy]

Originally Posted by *KK*

I think that perhaps in some cases the term conservative is being misused here. A political conservative is one thing, a conservative Supreme Court is something else entirely.

A conservative Supreme Court is one that tends to rely on precedent to define its rulings. It really has little to do with the political leanings of the members on the court.

A liberal court, on the other hand, tends to create "new" law with its rulings. A liberal court would be more likely to decide that something like the Miller test or Roe v Wade was a bad precedent and want to overturn those rulings.

Just thought I'd bring up this point.

Bullshit.

NOTHING would please many conservative jurists than the opportunity to overturn precedents such as Gideon, Sullivan, and Miranda. There's even some that would welcome a return to Plessy from the "excesses" of Brown v Board of Education.

The arguement over stone tablets or living document has been going on since the time of Andrew Jackson; the only reason the level of debate is so shrill today is that the so-called mainstream right is much further right than it was 20-30 years ago.

The reason that many on the right have their panties in a knot is that the two Bush appointees have THE APPEARANCE of being traditional Republicans, and traditional Republicans are far too moderate on social issues for the knucke-dragging neocons and cross-clutching Republicangelicals. They will strike a moderate course on social issues that will equally piss off Orin Hatch and Ted Kennedy (not really a bad way of finding the right course, maybe); meanwhile, the rights of capital and corporate "citizens" will trump the individual almost every time.

[Mike AI]

It is amusing to see the peopel coming to spin this choice. Bush could be a genuis and this woman could be the ultimate stealth conservative. But with the track record Repblicans have in being duped ( 7 of hte 9 judges were picked by Republican President's), I think Bush should have picked someone who clearly holds a strict Constructionalist pedergree.

[Dravyk]

Originally Posted by Mike AI

It is amusing to see the peopel coming to spin this choice. Bush could be a genuis and this woman could be the ultimate stealth conservative. But with the track record Repblicans have in being duped ( 7 of hte 9 judges were picked by Republican President's), I think Bush should have picked someone who clearly holds a strict Constructionalist pedergree.

Any pedigree would have been something.

[nickdark]

Originally Posted by Mike AI

.peopel .... genuis ..Repblicans ... pedergree.

Jesus H ..and you are casting aspersions on peoples intelligence and calling them morons..???

Didnt you drop out of law school ?

pedergree is my favourite

[Dravyk]

Originally Posted by nickdark

Jesus H ..and you are casting aspersions on peoples intelligence and calling them morons..???

Didnt you drop out of law school ?

pedergree is my favourite

LMAO!!

You should come around more often, Nick. Enjoy your posts!

[sextoyking]

Mike,

Just read your posts. What can I say.... Me and you and others have had our political battles in the past, while I always look for a good battle - I am not sure what to think about this nominee right now. Most Dems are being cautios - want to see the SLIM paper trail that she has. Sure Sen. Reid came out with some love but that doesn't satisfy me. Pat. Buch. was Livid over this - been watching the political shows all eve..

What I really hate is that all nominees now play the Ginsburg game, answer as few questions as you can to get confirmed.. I don't support that on either side of the coin.

While I might be so so ok with this nominee - don't be so quick to think Bush did a Bush#1 on you and the republicans.. He might have waiverd a bit - his #'s are down, katrina, etc, etc but I think he got what he wanted.

I hope Senators grill her like there is no tomorow when the hearings come.. I god dang hate NO PAPER TRAIL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This is an appt. for LIFE, and I want to know as much about a potential justice as I can.... Damm Mike, such is politics in 2005

Lame Duck status is already starting or forsure in a few more months. Some righties are already starting to slowly walk away / stand up against bush, you can see the writing on the wall.. Will the majority party pay in the mid terms? will it be 1994 again? I dunno - but I will forsure tell you - this next election cycle is sure to be interesting.

Oh, and will bush get lucky with a #3 justice before 2009?? John Paul Stevens is getting up there - that I truly worry about Mike......

Peace

Todd