| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"maff" |
| Date: |
28 Oct 2005 06:36:08 PM |
| Object: |
OT: A Departure's Lasting Damage |
A Departure's Lasting Damage
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/27/AR2005102701849.html
http://forums.delphiforums.com/atheistrefuge/messages?msg=1791.7358
By E. J. Dionne Jr.
Friday, October 28, 2005; Page A23
The damage President Bush and the conservative movement have inflicted
on their drive to pack the Supreme Court with allies will not be undone
by Harriet Miers's decision to withdraw her nomination.
Give Them Shelter
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/28/opinion/28saunders.html
http://forums.delphiforums.com/atheistrefuge/messages?msg=1786.9435
By ALEXANDER SAUNDERS
The United States should use a product of its manufacturing ingenuity
to help the millions left homeless by the earthquake in Pakistan.
The Road to Riches
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/5ba95f4634dec9cd
and thread
The Road to Riches
http://tinyurl.com/55nzo
A Blueprint for the Future
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/59c28cd6dfe6f60f
.
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: A Departure's Lasting Damage |
30 Oct 2005 06:11:44 AM |
|
|
On 28 Oct 2005 16:36:08 -0700, "maff" <maff91@yahoo.com> wrote:
The damage President Bush and the conservative movement have inflicted
on their drive to pack the Supreme Court with allies will not be undone
by Harriet Miers's decision to withdraw her nomination.
Actually, Miers was an attempt to put a compassionate conservative in. That was
his campaign promise and you 'rats are too dumb to realize it.
Now we go for the true conservative.
duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bobby D. Bryant" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: A Departure's Lasting Damage |
30 Oct 2005 12:34:04 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 30 Oct 2005, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
On 28 Oct 2005 16:36:08 -0700, "maff" <maff91@yahoo.com> wrote:
The damage President Bush and the conservative movement have inflicted
on their drive to pack the Supreme Court with allies will not be undone
by Harriet Miers's decision to withdraw her nomination.
Actually, Miers was an attempt to put a compassionate conservative
in. That was his campaign promise and you 'rats are too dumb to
realize it.
Now we go for the true conservative.
If he's not careful he'll appease the anti-abortionists but get a
revolt from the other half of his coalition.
--
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robert J. Kolker" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: A Departure's Lasting Damage |
30 Oct 2005 01:08:30 PM |
|
|
Bobby D. Bryant wrote:
On Sun, 30 Oct 2005, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
On 28 Oct 2005 16:36:08 -0700, "maff" <maff91@yahoo.com> wrote:
The damage President Bush and the conservative movement have inflicted
on their drive to pack the Supreme Court with allies will not be undone
by Harriet Miers's decision to withdraw her nomination.
Actually, Miers was an attempt to put a compassionate conservative
in. That was his campaign promise and you 'rats are too dumb to
realize it.
Now we go for the true conservative.
If he's not careful he'll appease the anti-abortionists but get a
revolt from the other half of his coalition.
Since the religious Yahoos supporting bush would not accept a "stealth
conservative" Bush will choose a raw-meat conservative which will lead
to a Democrat philibuster in congress. This in turn will lead to the
so-called nuclear option (adaption of cloture rules for judicial
nominees) which will bode unwell in the 2006 elections. Anyway it goes
down, the Republicans will lose Congress in 2006. But the conservatives
will have the Court for thirty years.
If Bush can get a raw-meat judicial conservative on the Court he has
done his thing. He cannot be re-elected so why should he care what the
moderate Repubilcans think? The Moderates have nowhere else to go in any
case.
Bob Kolker
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Burns" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: A Departure's Lasting Damage |
30 Oct 2005 06:31:04 PM |
|
|
"Robert J. Kolker" wrote:
Bobby D. Bryant wrote:
If he's not careful he'll appease the anti-abortionists but
get a revolt from the other half of his coalition.
Since the religious Yahoos supporting bush would not accept a
"stealth conservative" Bush will choose a raw-meat conservative
which will lead to a Democrat philibuster in congress. This
in turn will lead to the so-called nuclear option
No, the nuclear option is off the table. Those religious
Yahoos took it off, whether they meant to or not.
Any party in power, any time in the last 200+ years, could have
used the nuclear option. They didn't before because they
didn't think the People-God-Love-'Em would stand for it. Last
summer, rightly or wrongly, the right-wing wackos in Congress
seemed to believe that they'd fed the PGLE enough *****
that enough of them would sit still for it.
That condition no longer holds. After the so-recent Republican
flip-flop on "every nominee deserves an up-or-down vote",
even the (admittedly superb) Republican spin doctors can't
be expected to make a "flip-flop-flip" smell like anything
other than what it is.
If Bush puts up an even more right-wing wacko like your beloved
Yahoos want, and if the Democrats find some backbone and
filibuster, and if the Congressional RWWs pull the switch
on the nuclear option, there's no way they'll be able to
stand in front of the cameras and, with a straight face,
blame the Democrats.
Is it possible they'd do it anyway, without even the fig leaf
of claiming it's For the Good of the Country? Possible, I suppose.
But, in that case, I fully expect the Democrats, the next
time they're in power (2006?), to try to out-do the Republicans,
maybe impeach a couple of justices for spitting on the
sidewalk or something. Won't we have fun?
Jim Burns
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: A Departure's Lasting Damage |
30 Oct 2005 05:23:13 PM |
|
|
Robert J. Kolker wrote:
Since the religious Yahoos supporting bush would not accept a "stealth
conservative" Bush will choose a raw-meat conservative which will lead
to a Democrat philibuster in congress.
I say again, why doesn't he just take the job himself?
This in turn will lead to the
so-called nuclear option (adaption of cloture rules for judicial
nominees) which will bode unwell in the 2006 elections.
(Dictionary) So the French word for "closure" was "closure", but
somehow they converted it to another word "closture" to mean moving for
an immediate vote on the question under debate?
I am not sure if this is the same as a guillotine motion...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robert J. Kolker" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: A Departure's Lasting Damage |
30 Oct 2005 07:28:01 PM |
|
|
wrote:
I say again, why doesn't he just take the job himself?
He can't hold two positions at once. The judicial branch and the
executive branch must be separate and independent.
However, once he is out of office he is eligible to be a judge or justice.
Bob Kolker
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: A Departure's Lasting Damage |
30 Oct 2005 07:35:00 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 20:28:01 -0500, "Robert J. Kolker"
<nowhere@nowhere.com> wrote:
rja.carnegie@excite.com wrote:
I say again, why doesn't he just take the job himself?
He can't hold two positions at once. The judicial branch and the
executive branch must be separate and independent.
However, once he is out of office he is eligible to be a judge or justice.
<shudder>
Bob Kolker
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: A Departure's Lasting Damage |
30 Oct 2005 07:42:34 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 20:35:00 -0500, in alt.atheism
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote in
<n5tam1li6bskqrbor7s54l1nnaieu9ev9q@4ax.com>:
On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 20:28:01 -0500, "Robert J. Kolker"
<nowhere@nowhere.com> wrote:
rja.carnegie@excite.com wrote:
I say again, why doesn't he just take the job himself?
He can't hold two positions at once. The judicial branch and the
executive branch must be separate and independent.
However, once he is out of office he is eligible to be a judge or justice.
<shudder>
I, too, shudder at the idea of putting anyone with an MBA and no law
degree or legal experience on the Court. Bush is just an example of how
far you can go with connections and no brains.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Altarriba" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: A Departure's Lasting Damage |
30 Oct 2005 01:04:16 PM |
|
|
duke wrote:
On 28 Oct 2005 16:36:08 -0700, "maff" <maff91@yahoo.com> wrote:
The damage President Bush and the conservative movement have inflicted
on their drive to pack the Supreme Court with allies will not be undone
by Harriet Miers's decision to withdraw her nomination.
Actually, Miers was an attempt to put a compassionate conservative in. That was
his campaign promise and you 'rats are too dumb to realize it.
Actually, it was the strong rejection from Conservatives that sank her
nomination. The Democrats were willing to hear her out in the hearings,
at least.
Now we go for the true conservative.
Do you think that will work out better? If so, why?
<snip>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bobby D. Bryant" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: A Departure's Lasting Damage |
30 Oct 2005 05:46:30 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 30 Oct 2005, "Michael Altarriba" <mikealt@gmail.com> wrote:
duke wrote:
On 28 Oct 2005 16:36:08 -0700, "maff" <maff91@yahoo.com> wrote:
The damage President Bush and the conservative movement have
inflicted on their drive to pack the Supreme Court with allies
will not be undone by Harriet Miers's decision to withdraw her
nomination.
Actually, Miers was an attempt to put a compassionate conservative
in. That was his campaign promise and you 'rats are too dumb to
realize it.
Actually, it was the strong rejection from Conservatives that sank her
nomination. The Democrats were willing to hear her out in the hearings,
at least.
Now we go for the true conservative.
Do you think that will work out better? If so, why?
Filibuster, nuclear option, congressional meltdown.
It's not clear who will benefit most (or suffer least) from this.
--
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: A Departure's Lasting Damage |
29 Oct 2005 10:01:40 AM |
|
|
maff wrote:
Give Them Shelter
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/28/opinion/28saunders.html
By ALEXANDER SAUNDERS
The United States should use a product of its manufacturing ingenuity
to help the millions left homeless by the earthquake in Pakistan.
Off-topic but is this guy crazy?? Using American householders'
GREENHOUSES as winter dwellings for Pakistani refugees? A greenhouse
still needs to be heated in winter, so how are you going to achieve
that? These aren't designed for open fires or wood stoves.
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
