Replacing Sandy
My prediction: the "war" everyone is preparing for will not happen. I think people are misunderestimating both sides. I think that Bush will prepare a list of ten judges he is considering, then will consult with Leahy (as Clinton consulted with Hatch). Leahy will recommend the judge most palatable to the left (of course, they will all likely be conservative, but some will not be from the far right), and the confirmation process will be rigorous, as it should be, but without a filibuster. In the end, Bush's selection (after consulting with Leahy) will be easily confirmed, with less than 15 votes against him or her.
I stand ready to be proven wrong by either the right or the left. I will be disappointed in either side if they don't do something along the lines of what I've described.
So who can we expect? Well, Bush has told the nation that he wants Justices like Thomas and Scalia. Of course, he has also said that he deplores "judicial activists," which Thomas and Scalia clearly are. Bush has also said that he prefers "strict constructionists" who attempt to devine the original intent of the Constitution. But, that sort of backward-looking jurisprudence is largely a sham. So, he will likely nominate more activist judges who happen to follow his right-wing ideology.
In any event, I predict that, despite all the money accumulating within interest groups on the right and the left, this "war" will blow over quickly.
posted by Abe at 7/06/2005 01:41:00 PM
17 Comments:
In many ways, I hope you are right. Sadly, I doubt that you are. As you mentioned, both extremes are arming for war on this one.
If the selection and confirmation process turns into a circus, you will only have one group to thank…the LIBERALS. I believe America has spoken loud and clear and that is why the Republicans control the White House and Congress. The LIBERALS have already started to cry about potential nominations. Well, if America felt that Drunk Kennedy and Scream Machine Dean were capable of running this country then the voters would have said so. The LIBERALS have a history of not accepting reality (see: Sore Loserman, Flip Flop Kerry), so why would the nomination process be any different? Think of it this way, fewer abortions will increase the number of welfare recipients, thus increasing the number of the LIBERALS in this country. (Yes, I must capitalize the word LIBERALS)
Oh anonymous one-
You are so brave to comment without any name to add at the end. While I agree that many on the whacko left are arming for war, you are not entirely honest if you don't admit that the far right is doing the same thing. They've already told Bush they won't be accepting of Alberto Gonzales. Both sides need to shut up. Bush is the only voice that counts on this one. The Senate confirms, but only Bush can nominate. I DO think it will get ugly though.
Republicans should just steamroll their appointment through. Who will stop them? We own the congress and the president. The nation is one big red machine. The lefties are fighting a losing battle and for what? So people can abort babies, save serial killers, rapists, and let the terrorists run free... so they can have their gay marriages, have sex with donkeys and swine and marry a hundred wives...so they can pull the plug on those in comas over objections from loving parents and smoke their pot stoned and drink themselvs silly...so they can prop up the bloodsucking poor and welfare queens with their welfare and foodstamps you know they'll use on booze...and sso they can tax us honest taxpayers so much that we barely have enough to bring home to our families while the lazies good for nothings live high on the hog?
you all seem like smart and educated people why is this worth the fight?--Klug
Klug - you seem like a classic fool. I suppose there are people out there who are that dumb, but my hope for you, Klug, is that you are actually parodying the wingnut point of view. In any event, if you are interested in discourse at your level, perhaps you should go troll around some white supremacist cites or something.
Abe, please don't chase Klug away. He definitely adds to the entertainment value of 2GL. I mean, he can't take that stuff seriously, can he? Can he?
I don't expect the President will nominate a Great Jurist. It's kind of sad that we're looking toward Alberto Gonzales, for cryin' out loud, as a compromise nominee. Although Rocky predicts a circus, I think that will happen only if Bush nominates a clown like Clarence (another Little Legacy of Bush I). I mean, Dubya can't be that big a fool, can he? Can he?
Lefty - I won't be chased away that easy...
I've been following your replies to comments for some time...because mainly I like what some on my side of the aisle have to say.
What gets me is that your responses (and Piano's) are always the same, that the other person is some "idiot", some crackpot...in other words, has less intelligence than you, as if the Almighty touched only yourself with smarts. You say no statistics or facts in your defense or present a clear view but just dismiss our beliefs as inherently dumb.
That's where you lose. That's exactly what's wrong with your party these days. You are a bunch of whining limosine elitist liberals, like Sean Penn, who think they have all the answers for the world and the rest of us are morons.
The sad thing for you is that the rest of us out number you and the results don't lie. You lost the last election and the one before that because Kerry and Gore couldn't connect with the people, because Kerry (in his case) couldn't put together a clear message in his Yale tongue that the majority of voters could understand. For Gore, he rolled his eyes like you are doing and said he invented the internet.
Instead both ran on the fact that they were smarter than Bush, the idiotbox himself. But you know what? those were crucial mistakes of epic proportions. The man "of the people" won and won and in the end it was a big joke to us conservatives, and sad irony for you lefties, that Bush actually got better marks in college than the highbrow Kerry...and in the case of Gore, he went crazy.
Stop thinking you are better than everyone else in this country: be it the hick from deep in red country to or the richman sitting in his country club palace.
it will win you no votes from me or from the rest of us.
--Klug
Thanks, Klug -- you've given me a much clearer idea of where you stand. And if I hurt your feelings, I'm sorry.
Okay, Klug, having said that, I want to give you an idea of where I stand. As an avowed liberal, I have some comments on the positions that you put in my pocket ...
* I don't favor people aborting babies. That's my personal opinion. I can't speak for any woman who faces that decision. It's not my choice, nor yours -- it's hers.
* I'm not sure what you meant by saving serial killers or rapists. I'm not an evangelist, so that's not it. I believe that crime should be punished. I honestly haven't made up my mind about the death penalty.
* I'm not in favor of letting the terrorists run free. (<- that's a period)
* I am in favor of gay marriage, to use your label. I know a lot of fine people who would like to share in the American Dream but can't, simply because their idea of consensual sex between two adults strikes some of you as icky.
* I'm not in favor of sex with donkeys or swine. Check the Congressional Record -- if you can find any bill introduced by a liberal congressman (or woman) that proposes to legalize bestiality, I'll burn my ACLU card on local access TV and give you credit.
* I'm not in favor of any person having more than one spouse, much less a hundred. (See promise immediately preceding.)
* Pulling the plug? Tough call. My position is twofold: (1) it would be best if each person's wishes were clear before he or she dipped into a coma, (2) sometimes true love means letting go.
* Smoking pot stoned and drinking selves silly? The former is illegal, the latter is not. Either way, no harm no foul, unless someone, say, drives a car in that condition -- that's a crime.
* Regarding the bloodsucking poor and the welfare queens, I believe there are abuses of the system -- in less than 5% of the cases. Find me some cases of even those people living high on the hog. Please.
So, if you want me to respect your intelligence, I ask you to not distort my political beliefs to include sexual violence, terrorism, bestiality, polygamy, crimes against society, and fraud. Those are not planks in my platform.
If you ever are charged with rape, terrorist activity, having too many wives, drunken driving, or wanting to marry your best buddy, I hope you get a fair shake in our legal system. I would advise you against screwing any pigs.
Regarding our respective IQs, I actually do think I'm smarter than you. But let's lay it on the line -- last time I took a standardized IQ test, it came out at 140. You know what that means? Nothing. It makes me no better or worse than you, nor does it entitle me to anything more than you are entitled to in our system of government. And we're both entitled to our opinions.
There. I've done my best to be objective and to fully address some of the concerns you've raised. Thank you for the opportunity to set the record straight.
IQ of 140, huh? Next thing you know we'll be comparing penis sizes.--Klug
Ouch, all Klug can come back with is a comment about a sexual organ.
Nate, thanks, I was getting to that. I had Hannity on and could only reply quickly with the obvious.
Piano--I appreciate the honesty. here's a couple of my humble thoughts:
abortion--simply put it's murder of an innocent, period.
you say it's a mother's choice... not only does that make meaningless the man's role but that argument is dated. It might have flown in the 70s when all women were still in britches and shackled to the kitchen. we now live in a different era. women are now better off represented in higher offices up and down government. They are in congress, they are in cabinet positions, heads of state in some countries, and most important, they vote and vote in huge numbers, which in fact makes or breaks elections.
Last time I looked, they outnumbered men in this country. Let's put it to a vote, then... winner takes all. if all women voted and all men voted, with all the men voting for pro-life and all women voting for choice, choice would win, right?
But, i bet you'd lose still because most people like you are against it, even women.
crime--lefties are too easy on crime allowing murders and rapists to second, third and fourth chances. Lock em up and throw away the key, I say. they lost their chance to participate in our society. on the death penalty, we should make it more prominent. the liberals are the one's who muck it up appealing convictions for years and eliminating the deterrence value. Once we convict the Jeffrey Daumers, we should execute them the next day. Then we'll see who thinks about chopping someone up and throwing them in the freezer.
I sometimes think you guys are more on the side of the convicts than on the side of the victims. the law abiding among us need to take back our streets and start taking names. I call for public hangings and lots of them.
for you, I think you should choose a side on the death penalty. here's one way I chose-- what would you want if a loved one was unfortunately bound, tortured and killed and left in an abandoned field for the pigeons?
terrorism--see above on crime. We live in a brave new world of briefcase bombs, loose nukes, and people who hate our very existence. we need to attack these murderers before they attack us, and that includes any countries who sponsor terrorism. Look what happened to Kaddafi after 9/11. Shaking in his shorts b/c of Iraq, he gave up after years of fighting us in the shadows supporting all forms of low life terrorists and blowing up airliners.
no matter how you lefties couch it, Iraq is a success in the long term. our enemies now know we are serious.
also, quit siding with the terrorists in Gitmo. they have it better than they ever had it in their Third World country.
gay marriage--what do you want to call it? civil unions/ come on! you're still discriminating calling it something less than what us heteros have. Like it or not, the Almighty made us a certain way biologically. for gays, the pieces don't fit. by calling it marriage, the state condones this unnatural mating.
In the spirit of democracy, let's put it to a vote, like abortion. I bet you lose. 70% of this country is against it.
donkeys and swine and polygamy--obvioulsy, I was making joke. but if you condone homosexuality what next? for polygamy, again you have consenting adults who love eachother coming together in union. how is that any differnent from gay marriage. marriage of five is the same concept. why stop at two? the five should have the same benefits as the rest of us if they love eachother and everyone enters the union with free will, under your reason.
our laws reflect our beliefs which pass on from generation to generation. we outlawed homosexuality for a reason because it conflicted with our beliefs and was unnatural just as it's unnatural to mate with a sow.
to sum up...the same reason you're against polygamy, i'm also against homosexuality. i just draw the line further up.
pulling plug? a life is a life. we should want to try to save all life (except those who have lost that privilege..see above crime).
smoking pot--it's a gateway to crack dens and acid trips. we have a duty to protect our children from what harms them. the medical marijuana issue is a backdoor to making pot illegal, something high on the liberals' warped priorities.
welfare--it's incentive-less. It encrourages sloth and the way things are set up you get more money if you have more children. There's something wrong with this equation. go out and get a job like the rest of us. there are plenty of them.
thank you.--Klug
Come on, did you have to dis on pot like that, did ya?
Thanks, Klug. Now that we know where we stand, I will refrain from further investment in attempting reasoned debate. And I want my quarter back.
Your loss. Apparently ye is just as set in his ways.--Klug
Pot is a "gateway to crack dens and acid trips" ? Give me a break! I know MANY people who have smoked pot for decades and NEVER advanced to any other drug. They don't beat their wives like drunks do either. Marijuana should be decriminalized. It's no worse than booze.
Klug -
Have you ever considered stopping your ignorant ranting for one moment and actually being a human being with a conscious? You must be lacking love in your life to feel so much hatred towards the world. I hope someday someone gets through to you and you can use your heart again.
Post a Comment
<< Home