What happened to Bush's right to get the SC justice he wants?

Kurovski

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Oct-09-05 04:08 PM
Original message

What happened to Bush's right to get the SC justice he wants?

We heard so much about it from Republicans prior to his nomination of Harriet Meirs.

Are Republicans *gasp!* FLIP-FLOPPING?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Marr

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Oct-09-05 04:10 PM
Response to Original message

1. That only applies when the nominee is a Federalist Society type of guy.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

jobycom

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Oct-09-05 04:10 PM
Response to Original message

2. Oh, Good! (chuckle) I hadn't thought of that!

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

JoZbean

(153 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Oct-09-05 04:11 PM
Response to Original message

3. She deserves a 'fair up or down vote!' n/t

Edited on Sun Oct-09-05 04:43 PM by JoZbean

thought I'd better edit for :sarcasm:

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Kurovski

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Oct-09-05 05:20 PM
Response to Reply #3

5. Oh, gol-dang it, JoZbean!

A flame war would'a kept my thread kicked!

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

JoZbean

(153 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Oct-09-05 06:41 PM
Response to Reply #5

7. Please, not yet, it's too soon......I'm still an 'innocent' newbie here

and flaming right away would have scared the jeebus out of me!

:scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared:

Give me time to settle in and find my way before I have to stand up for myself! And maybe this will give you a :kick:

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Kurovski

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Oct-09-05 06:53 PM
Response to Reply #7

8. About a month ago today!, Welcome JoZbean!

(Hey, this is also a kick, whaddayaknow!)

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

JoZbean

(153 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Oct-09-05 07:00 PM
Response to Reply #8

9. One more kick

Believe me, I read a lot longer than I've been a registered member. I just kept trying to register every day till they finally decided I wasn't going away. Maybe the powers that be decided I'd crash and burn soon enough. :nuke: I'm thrilled to be part of the community here.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Garbo 2004

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Oct-10-05 06:20 AM
Response to Reply #3

13. I saw an ad on TV that said precisely that. I was like, whaat? Advertising

SCOTUS appointments on TV???

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Kurovski

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Oct-11-05 03:56 AM
Response to Reply #13

14. I've seen those for other nominees. Not Meirs.

Which is the whole point of the post. suddenly the rules of the game are changed when the repubelickin's want them to. They're the original, not-to-be-outdone flip-floppers.

Purchased political ads for SC nominees, no telling whether the millions of dollars paid will affect the tone of news reporting on the network that recieves the cash.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

havocmom

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Oct-09-05 04:12 PM
Response to Original message

4. Fine print: This whine applicable ONLY if nominee pisses off the left.

Not valid with any nominee Dobson-bots think might drink something besides Kool Aide

Void where prohibited by rational thought

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

in_cog_ni_to

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Oct-09-05 06:15 PM
Response to Original message

6. Yeah. And what about not having a LITMUS TEST?

Damn hypocrites.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

BurgherHoldtheLies

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Oct-09-05 07:05 PM
Response to Original message

10. Don't forget: She shouldn't answer ANY questions related to future cases

Sword cuts both ways, doesn't it Rapturist Right wingnuts?!?!?!?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Kurovski

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Oct-10-05 04:51 AM
Response to Original message

11. Page four? What was this doing on page four?

*kick*

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

radfringe

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Oct-10-05 05:58 AM
Response to Original message

12. it was never about who bush* wants

it's about the rabid-right getting the activist-judge they want so they can get the legislation they want

the law is in the eye of the beholder

any judge making a ruling on a case is also making an impact on the laws/constitution because they are interpreting the laws/constitution

doesn't matter if the ruling strictly follows the letter of the law or not - it still comes down to judges making their own interpretations and applying it

if cases were clear cut, black & white - then we could have computers make the rulings.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

ReadTomPaine

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Oct-11-05 07:20 AM
Response to Original message

15. That rule is only for Democratic critics, silly! The sad thing is that..

Democrats listened to this tripe. They are still listening to it, even now, even here.

As others have sharply pointed out, "We're keeping our power dry".

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

DU AdBot (1000+ posts)

Tue May 07th 2024, 01:51 PM
Response to Original message

Advertisements [?]

Top

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.