Is Bush turning in to Jimmy Carter?

P

progunner1957

Moderator
What was Bush thinking?? He had a golden opportunity to appoint a true conservative to the Supreme Court and change it for the better for decades to come. With his choice of Miers, he has p*ssed away that opportunity.

Miers has NO EXPERIENCE AS A JUDGE, yet she gets a "pass go, collect $200, go straight to the highest court in the land" card???

What The Fiddlesticks, Over?? IMHO, this appointment reeks - it reeks of "throw the socialists a BIG bone" and/or "payback with WAAAAAAY too much interest," and/or "take the job and develop a case of CRS (Can't Remember... Stuff)."

Your thoughts??

Tammy Bruce: Bush Turning In to Jimmy Carter
Tammy Bruce, a Democrat and a pro-choice feminist who once headed NOW's Los Angeles chapter, said the nomination to the Supreme Court of Harriet Miers proves "President Bush is turning into Jimmy Carter.”

Bruce, author of the upcoming book "The New American Revolution: Using The Power of the Individual To Save Our Nation from Extremists,” said the president had a great opportunity to nominate a true conservative like Janice Rogers Brown, but he blew it.

"I’m thrilled it’s a woman, but the reality is that 7 of the last 9 Republican nominees to the Supreme Court went to the left side of the bench,” Bruce said.

Bruce said a "legitimate anger is rising” among conservatives who were promised by Bush during two election campaigns that he would appoint like-minded conservatives to the High Court when given the chance.

"The reality is that two of the four dissenting members (the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist and retired Justice Sandra Day O’Connor) on the Kelo decision are now gone. The government is now larger than Franklin Delano Roosevelt ever imagined. President Bush is not an authentic conservative.”

Bruce added, "if Democrats accept a nominee like Miers, then conservatives are in legitimate trouble.”
 
It would be sad that alot of social issues that were resolved in the 60s and 70s might be revisited after appointment of more right wing bench sitters. Hopefully they will just look at as case law and leave it alone.
 
lol you know all in all..civil liberties and personal freedoms are more important then whether you got a full auto HK under the bed at night..sides look at how most right wing goverments generally start to drift towards dictatorship and eventual arms control...to right wing is just as stupid as to left wing.. :D
 
459

I don't see where it was mentioned that we should install an extremist.

It looks as though you think anything right of FDR is a something to be feared?

The ACLU would agree with you about civil liberties, and they are extremists who use that very reasoning to rob the people of their freedoms a little inch at a time. They say they are the protectors of civil liberties... but anybody with the other half of Rush's brain can plainly see that for the lie it is...


Progunner

If anyone EVER thought Bush was a conservative... they had their heads in a dark place.

His father was a moderate AT BEST, and like father, like son.

The conservatives supported him because he said he would support them...
He is not keeping his promise.

True enough, we haven't heard from our new judge yet... I'm a conservative and I am willing to wait and see.

Bush did say PUBLICLY that he wants constitutional traditionalists on the Supreme Court. Let's see just how it goes. After all we don't have a choice anyway. :(

Everybody

The conservatives of today are yesterday's Democrats.
The Democrats of today are yesterday's Socialists.
Make no mistake... the liberals have most certainly hijacked the Democrat Party.

Don't be decieved by the subtleties in that FACT. :mad:
 
Last edited:
a couple of things

1. I dont see how many view Bush as a moderate..

2. Anybody who is far enough right or far enough left is an extremist...who benefits from that?

Im my opinion the single biggest problem today is the lack of separation of church from state and a large segement of the population who would like to turn society into their own mini little theocracy.

yeah I agree anything right of FDR is to be feared...I dont care for socialists either...just somebody nice and balanced in the middle...
 
So far you ain't showin' much middle...

FDR was NEVER in the middle... He was a socialist.
I think your definition of these things need a closer look.
FDR was barely right of Charlie Rangel (sp?)...

There are NO extreme rightists on the right side of the aisle...
There are several leftist extremists on the left side of the aisle...

This is what Democrat, Zell Miller was angry about in his speach at the REPUBLICAN Convention.

Anyone who isn't in the middle... is not necessarily an extremist on either side of the aisle.

And last, but not least... the conservative Democrat is extinct.
 
I think its all semantics and point of view..im sure there are those out there who thought either Stalin or Hitler were moderates...

I just dont see how having a very right wing goverment is a good thing. Also I dont see how FDR met the definition of a socialist. Maybe Im missing something?

No extreme rightist?

What about Aryan Nations? KKK? World Church of the Creator? wouldnt you classify them and others of that ilk as right wing extremists?

I think to many people equate being moderate with no guns..I dont see the connection...Whereas firearms ownership has been banned in both right wing and left wing countries...

What is the middle to you? I am asking as I dont consider Bush to be a moderate and wondered what you thought a moderate was?
 
Ever since the Bork confirmation battle conservatives have had to seek
judicial candidates who have no paper trail of writings that can be used against them. Conversely, liberals are now feeling the effects of the Ginsburg
Defense, where a nominee parries all questions on sensitive and controversial
topics by saying that they can't comment on any matter that may come before the Court.
 
Even if she is a conservative, she's old as sh*t and will possibly be out of there in what 3 administrations from now? If he was going to nominate someone with no experience, he could have at least picked someone young enough to make an impact for a long time.

I'm convinced Bush isn't really that bright. At least we don't have to hear from that idiot Rumsfeld much anymore.
 
OK, Bush nominated someone who has never been a judge. (Surprised me to learn how many other SC justices were never judges either.) Maybe I've been out in the sun too long BUT after Roberts sailed thru so easily, is it possible Miers was nominated as a sacrificial lamb, expecting a rejection to the next nominee? If so, then Bush could come back with a solid prospect who could be expected to gain approval by the senate. Yeah, I know it's far out but politics is weird sometimes.

Good shooting and be safe.
LB
 
Originally posted by progunner1957:

Tammy Bruce, a Democrat and a pro-choice feminist who once headed NOW's Los Angeles chapter, said the nomination to the Supreme Court of Harriet Miers proves "President Bush is turning into Jimmy Carter.”

Bruce, author of the upcoming book "The New American Revolution: Using The Power of the Individual To Save Our Nation from Extremists,” said the president had a great opportunity to nominate a true conservative like Janice Rogers Brown, but he blew it.

"I’m thrilled it’s a woman, but the reality is that 7 of the last 9 Republican nominees to the Supreme Court went to the left side of the bench,” Bruce said.

Bruce said a "legitimate anger is rising” among conservatives who were promised by Bush during two election campaigns that he would appoint like-minded conservatives to the High Court when given the chance.
Click to expand...

So, let me get this straight: a Democratic feminist thinks Bush's choice is not conservative enough? this is really worrisome! :rolleyes:

I would hope that he has picked an unexperienced person because it will be harder to nail her down in the Senate with past decisions etc. I am indeed worried that she is not in her prime. Inexperience for inexperience he could have picked Ann Coulter! :p
 
Rehnquist had no experience as a judge, either. I suggest that Bush is probably AT LEAST as bright as guys who post on internet boards and don't know how common it's been for Supreme Court Justices to have had no previous judicial experience.

Just listening to that ignorant wizard, Dave Letterman, repeating the same blather...."Bush appointee has no experinece." Yeah, Dave's a real authority on legal matters.
 
I saw an interesting stat on another board, don't know if it's true or not, but apparently since Roosevelt's first term 10 of the 34 justices appointed have had no judicial experience.

And Don is right, there is no requirement that an appointee even be a lawyer.
 
jsp98m3

I'm older than Miers and I like me OK. :p



459

It appears you don't know the vernacular, so you rest your laurels on semantics as an excuse not to understand. It undermines your credibility on the entire subject.

You asked what is the "middle" to me. The answer requires a broader understanding of the extremes.

The extremes of both SIDES OF THE AISLE would be exemplified by Communists and Socialists on the left, and by Facists, Nazis, KKK and Aryan Nations on the right.

The "aisle" is a space between the Democrats and the Republicans used to walk to their seats in the Congress. The left hand side is where the Democrats sit... the right hand side is where the Republicans sit. As seen from the Presiding Chair at the front of both houses.

Can you see the middle yet?

Both of these parties are expected to be fair and balanced and open-minded. Until recently, they have both been traditionally polite and respectful of such things as the Office of the President and the Office they themselves hold.

They had been careful about exposing the Nation's "dirty laundry" to the world and worked out their differences respectfully, and out of the world's view.

Can you see the middle yet?

The left has dominated the Federal government for close to 50 years. They have mostly held a very strong majority in both houses of Congress. When they didn't have a Democrat President they still held a majority in Congress.

When the Republicans did manage to squeek out a weak majority, they still needed votes from the more reasonable Democrats across the aisle, exemplified by sensible men like Zell Miller.

The extreme left has taken over the Democrat party... and like Witch Fonda have shown that they have...

NO RESPECT for the constitutional rights of the people.
NO RESPECT for the offices over which they preside.
NO RESPECT for the people they are supposed to represent.
NO REVERENCE for institutions like the White House and Oval Office.
NO HONOR among themselves.

They have a long history of aligning themselves with hypocrites like the Reverends Jackson and Sharpton, and with a politician who abandon his mistress to a miserable death in a car wrecked by himself, without lifting a finger to help her get out. All of these men hold themselves above the law (Ted Kennedy) and not accountable to it.

The 2nd amendment has become a critical theme for maintaining all YOUR rights in general. An armed citizenry cannot be easily enslaved by either left or right-wing extremists. And if we can protect one of our precious rights, then we can preserve the others as well.

The church and state separation is completely misunderstood. Largely because of the ACLU and like-minded leftists...

The law is simply a "check and balance of power" to keep the church leadership from merging their strength over the minds of men, with the strength of the government over their physical existence.

It is also to prevent the church from taking over the government, and the government from making itself the national church.

This has happened to many nations throughout human history and the US Founding Fathers were acutely aware of the need to allow the government to govern, and the church to teach under separate organisations.

Morals are very important in all societies. Without morals, the nations of the world have always failed.

Do you see the middle yet?

A conservative, Democrat or Republican, will see the middle as "fence-riding". A ride which will take you nowhere.

Most people can see that the "middle" is a wishy-washy place to be, and instead of compromising and fairness, the position "compromises" the MORAL PRINCIPLES of the person who ALLOWS himself to become pre-occupied with maintaining his position in the middle.

This should answer your question as to why conservatives see Bush as a moderate... he is neither hot nor cold... he is lukewarm at best because he is lacking the courage to take a stand on the principles he knows to be correct.

Because of this mushy mindset, the nation is, inch by inch, p*ssing away the most precious tenets of it's freedom. The religious tenets being an important part of the foundations of the greatest nation in history!

What is happening is that the nation is being slowly "morfed" into something it was never intended to be. An ugly charicature of it's original self.

The prime quality of the conservative, is that he holds firmly to the principles that have always been an integral part of the nation's character.

:mad:
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top