Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
BCM
User Panel

Site Notices
Posted: 10/13/2005 5:41:52 PM EST
Just throwing out a thought here.

If Bush has an agenda for expansion of Federal power, he will need to get past a huge roadblock-the constitutionality of certain intended acts (remember his recent remarks about deploying the military in a pandemic?) as interpreted by the United States Supreme Court.

I have no idea whether Roberts might fit into a scenario like this, but the Miers nomination makes much more sense when you consider "shared values" vs. "Strict Constructionist" in this context.
Link Posted: 10/13/2005 5:47:56 PM EST
[#1]

Quoted:
Just throwing out a thought here.

If Bush has an agenda for expansion of Federal power, he will need to get past a huge roadblock-the constitutionality of certain intended acts (remember his recent remarks about deploying the military in a pandemic?) as interpreted by the United States Supreme Court.



I swear to fucking God, it's turning into DU-the Right Wing here.  
Link Posted: 10/13/2005 5:51:28 PM EST
[#2]

Quoted:
Just throwing out a thought here.

If Bush has an agenda for expansion of Federal power, he will need to get past a huge roadblock-the constitutionality of certain intended acts (remember his recent remarks about deploying the military in a pandemic?) as interpreted by the United States Supreme Court.



There is no constitutional prohibition against deploying the Army in the event of a emergency. Even the Posse Comitatus Act has an exception for declared emergencies.

And a huge +1 to what RikWriter said. You guys are losing your grasp on reality, fast.
Link Posted: 10/13/2005 5:53:36 PM EST
[#3]
Writing on the wall -------------->   "Alex Jones was right."
Link Posted: 10/13/2005 6:00:58 PM EST
[#4]

Quoted:
Writing on the wall -------------->   "Alex Jones was right."



Writing on the wall--------------->   "t-stox is insane and so is Alex Jones."
Link Posted: 10/13/2005 6:08:17 PM EST
[#5]
Bush can do whatever he wants too and there is nothing you can do about it.   If the bird flu did mutate and did strike here, I sure would want the miltary to come out and not just quartine areas (they should be able to actually kill the people that have it) Yes this might sound harsh, but if you could kill 1000 people and stop the spread it would be worth it.

Also please stop blaming  goverment on other issues.  It is time to stop giving people money for not doing anything or being depressed.  


Sure they make alot of money (more than I will ever make a year) but not compared to CEO's who run small business.   If you have a problem with them instead of complaining about whats going on do something about it.  Run for a seat in the federal goverment, the requirements aren't the hard to complete.  

And yes I know my grammar and spelling is horrible.  
Link Posted: 10/13/2005 6:14:58 PM EST
[#6]

Quoted:
Just throwing out a thought here.

If Bush has an agenda for expansion of Federal power, he will need to get past a huge roadblock-the constitutionality of certain intended acts (remember his recent remarks about deploying the military in a pandemic?) as interpreted by the United States Supreme Court.

I have no idea whether Roberts might fit into a scenario like this, but the Miers nomination makes much more sense when you consider "shared values" vs. "Strict Constructionist" in this context.



Bush ain't no evil genius.
Link Posted: 10/13/2005 6:16:43 PM EST
[#7]

Quoted:
Just throwing out a thought here.

If Bush has an agenda for expansion of Federal power, he will need to get past a huge roadblock-the constitutionality of certain intended acts (remember his recent remarks about deploying the military in a pandemic?) as interpreted by the United States Supreme Court.

I have no idea whether Roberts might fit into a scenario like this, but the Miers nomination makes much more sense when you consider "shared values" vs. "Strict Constructionist" in this context.



Don't you have a trash bin in your house?
Link Posted: 10/13/2005 6:17:27 PM EST
[#8]
You know whats been in my head lately.....

CONDI '08
Link Posted: 10/13/2005 8:42:15 PM EST
[#9]
Would anyone argue there are not far better choices for the nomination than Miers? The explanation may be as simple as one proposed by Sean Hannity today; that Bush has no stomach for a fight.

However his choice suggests there are less obvious motives that make Miers more suited to his purposes.  If making sucessful challenges less likely to his handling of  gitmo or his recent remarks regarding (important detail alert) increasing Federal authority to act in times of crisis are not his real motives, then what do you think they are? Remember Roosevelts New Deal and the way he stacked the court then to get his way.

I don't pay attention to the shiny side out people and what they talk about and why is irrelevant to me. Under the circumstances I think these are fair questions.

When Thurgood Marshall stepped down and created a vacancy, at the time I thought a black conservative nominee would effectively give both the Democrats what they were demanding without letting them have what they really wanted and still accomplish conservative purposes. When Bush 41 made his choice my first thought was "the sob (with respect) did it!"

I nailed it then and while I don't claim to be on the button here, I do think there is something going on behind the curtains. If you don't think my speculations are accurate, I'd be interested to know what you think.

Some folks seem inclined to project all kinds of things into the discussion. The fact is, "evil genius" has a seat at every presidents table of advisors. I am also sure that 41 and 43 had at least a couple of casual conversations about selecting nominees and if the choice of Clarence Thomas does not seem just a little machiavellian to you then I suggest you away from politics more complicated than the local PTA.

And while I'd vote again for Bush, he's no Reagan.

Intelligent discussion is invited.

Link Posted: 10/13/2005 8:44:23 PM EST
[#10]

So did Bush cause Katrina and 9/11 as part of this master plan?  

Or is his plan to expand Federal power a RESULT of 9/11 and Katrina?
Link Posted: 10/13/2005 9:08:24 PM EST
[#11]

Quoted:
Would anyone argue there are not far better choices for the nomination than Miers? The explanation may be as simple as one proposed by Sean Hannity today; that Bush has no stomach for a fight.

However his choice suggests there are less obvious motives that make Miers more suited to his purposes.  If making sucessful challenges less likely to his handling of  gitmo or his recent remarks regarding (important detail alert) increasing Federal authority to act in times of crisis are not his real motives, then what do you think they are? Remember Roosevelts New Deal and the way he stacked the court then to get his way.

I don't pay attention to the shiny side out people and what they talk about and why is irrelevant to me. Under the circumstances I think these are fair questions.

When Thurgood Marshall stepped down and created a vacancy, at the time I thought a black conservative nominee would effectively give both the Democrats what they were demanding without letting them have what they really wanted and still accomplish conservative purposes. When Bush 41 made his choice my first thought was "the sob (with respect) did it!"

I nailed it then and while I don't claim to be on the button here, I do think there is something going on behind the curtains. If you don't think my speculations are accurate, I'd be interested to know what you think.

Some folks seem inclined to project all kinds of things into the discussion. The fact is, "evil genius" has a seat at every presidents table of advisors. I am also sure that 41 and 43 had at least a couple of casual conversations about selecting nominees and if the choice of Clarence Thomas does not seem just a little machiavellian to you then I suggest you away from politics more complicated than the local PTA.

And while I'd vote again for Bush, he's no Reagan.

Intelligent discussion is invited.




Ma·chi·a·vel·li·an  
adj.
Of or relating to Machiavelli or Machiavellianism.
Suggestive of or characterized by expediency, deceit, and cunning

I had to look that one up

I just don't buy into your evil genius theory about motives for undermining rights in that regard. That is far to complicated. After seeing GWB say yesterday that he picked her because of her religion it would almost seem like he wants her to be defeated in the Senate. That is one of the worst things he could say about a nominee in this climate. Enough conservatives are pissed now that the senators will have to start taking into account upcoming elections in their choice over Miers. It is going to be interesting, that's for sure. I just really hope that the discontent for President Bush doesn't carry over and harm the republican majorities in congress for the next few cycles. Those guys are out of control on spending as well but that is a whole other topic.
Link Posted: 10/13/2005 9:23:00 PM EST
[#12]
I think Bush was faced with crisis' and rose to the occasion. And rose, and rose...

Just for fun, what kind of president would he be thought to be if these major events hadn't occurred?

I think the defining issue of his presidency will turn out to be his steadfast policy in Iraq. It will continue to pay divdends into the future until the middle east fades into irrelevance.  Our grandchildren will probably put his face on the new million dollar bill in gratitude.

Perhaps a better question would be to ask what Reagen would do in his shoes. I doubt we'd be wondering what the heck He thought He was doing.

ETA:
I'm not , only speculating and inviting discussion. I still think there is a whole lot of behind-the-scenes scheming but the basic motives still distill out and they really might be as simple as
Link Posted: 10/13/2005 9:34:38 PM EST
[#13]

Quoted:
I think Bush was faced with crisis' and rose to the occasion. And rose, and rose...

Just for fun, what kind of president would he be thought to be if these major events hadn't occurred?

I think the defining issue of his presidency will turn out to be his steadfast policy in Iraq. It will continue to pay divdends into the future until the middle east fades into irrelevance.  Our grandchildren will probably put his face on the new million dollar bill in gratitude.
Perhaps a better question would be to ask what Reagen would do in his shoes. I doubt we'd be wondering what the heck He thought He was doing.



The middle east and Islam will be a PITA long after we are dead and buried. Look at their infiltration of Europe and Iran's nuclear ambitions as a sign of things to come.
Link Posted: 10/14/2005 3:27:12 AM EST
[#14]

Quoted:
Would anyone argue there are not far better choices for the nomination than Miers? The explanation may be as simple as one proposed by Sean Hannity today; that Bush has no stomach for a fight.



Or that he knows he would lose with RINOs like Specter and McCain in the Senate.
Close Join Our Mail List to Stay Up To Date! Win a FREE Membership!

Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!

You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.


By signing up you agree to our User Agreement. *Must have a registered ARFCOM account to win.
Top Top