Miers named nomiee to Supreme Court - Page 4

Tom Earp · #46 10-04-2005, 06:07 PM

Rudey, I am thinking abor becomeing Tree Huger from Your Posts!

God, Get with Real Life! All are shit for brains and You want to folow them?

Dah,

Give Me Fred Dalton Thompspn for President!

Exquisite5 · #47 10-04-2005, 06:15 PM

Ok- back on the topic- I am one of those Dems who doesn't mind the Miers nomination. For once, I am not dipleased with old Dubya. She may turn out to be a Souter, she may turn out to be a Thomas- but I feel better not knowing that she is a Thomas instead of knowing for sure that she is.

Phasad1913 · #48 10-04-2005, 06:35 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Exquisite5
The only problem is that voting Republican means voting for a platform that enforces negative stereotypes against us. Remember Bill Bennett?

AfAms are actually a quite conservative cultural group, particularly those who have escaped poverty. The issue, however, is
1) many of the older AfAms who have escaped poverty still remember it and its stigma and can't bring themselves to vote for a party that blames the poor instead of helps it , and
2) we all feel the effects of racism and just can't vote for a party that wants to pin the problms of America (many of which are the result of poverty --not race-- or lifestly issues we want nothing to do with anyway) on us (AfAms on the whole are quite homophobic).

A lot (respectively speaking) of AfAms voted for Bush simply because of the gay marriage issue, but none of his appointees were appointed with any thought of us in mind.

It is hard to buy into the idea of pulling yourself up by your bootstraps when all the good jobs seem to go to cronys. I don't mind a hypocrit, but know what you are.

I myself, get more and more conservative as I age. I will be taxed out the wazoo if I take my law firm job offer and my parents already are. I have lived in DC but have claimed TX as my state of residency for the past 2 years since we don't have income tax. I am married and don't believe in divorce. I am a Christian and honeslty believe family values are important, but honestly I don't really care about what goes on in someone else's bedroom. Nevertheless, despite my conservative or at least moderate stance on many issues I cannot vote Republican because an AfAm (I prefer American Black since I have never been to Africa, know no parts of it, and am just as American as you, but I digress) I know that Republicans still see me as a criminal.....now why would I support that?

What AfAms need is not to vote Republican or Democrat for that matter- we're only 13% fo the population, we're not gonna affect change either way. What we need to do is keep our money in our communities and start our own businesses. Right now Mobil oil could buy up the top 100 black businesses with the money it has liquid...and still have more left over. We need to get on that level. I am so over racism- who cares- be a racist- I know in this country money talks. We need to stop working for corporations and start corporations.

WE need to go back to the days of Greenwood, OK and that way, if we need political change we can forget voting, and just do like Ford and Mobil Oil do, fund campaigns. Voting is bull sh*t unless there are enough of you to matter, Mobil Oil and its shareholders constiute a small portion of the electorate, but they sure do run sh*t. That is what we need to do. FUND THE CAMPAIGNS..money buys influence.

That is where realy change lies. That is why Condoleeza is in the Cabinet- there is an oil tanker named after her.

agree wholeheartedly.

Rudey · #49 10-04-2005, 06:38 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Exquisite5
Ok- back on the topic- I am one of those Dems who doesn't mind the Miers nomination. For once, I am not dipleased with old Dubya. She may turn out to be a Souter, she may turn out to be a Thomas- but I feel better not knowing that she is a Thomas instead of knowing for sure that she is.

And I am one of those Republicans that feels we can do better and is willing to put up a fight.

-Rudey

kddani · #50 10-04-2005, 06:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Exquisite5
Ok- back on the topic- I am one of those Dems who doesn't mind the Miers nomination. For once, I am not dipleased with old Dubya. She may turn out to be a Souter, she may turn out to be a Thomas- but I feel better not knowing that she is a Thomas instead of knowing for sure that she is.

Lol, so you're happy being blissfully ignorant?

Exquisite5 · #51 10-04-2005, 07:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by kddani
Lol, so you're happy being blissfully ignorant?

If you want to break my post down to that....okay.

However, a more discerning understanding of what I am "happy" about is as follows: I expected Bush to appoint Clarence Thomas reincarnate. I expect whomever Bush appoints to actually reach the Court as Republicans run the Senate. As such, I am "happy" that he did not appoint an open Clarence Thomas. No matter what Miers is or is not she is not an open Clarence Thomas which means that when issues come before, even if she has an inner Clarence Thomas, she can still be swayed AND save face. She doesn't have to live in Scalia'a azz as C.T. does because she hasn't made her name that way.

I am also "happy" that she could actually end up like a Souter. Now that is a long stretch, but definitely wouldn't be a possibility if Miers were CT #2.

So, to summise, I know that Bush is not going to appoint a Breyer - Bush clearly is no Clinton. I know I am NOT going to be crazy about whomever Mr. Pres. appoints. So, realistically, as I am not going to love whomever he appoints, I am "happy" that he either appointed an

a) an unknown with the heart of CT, but who is not a public CT2 so can actually consider the opinions of other judges and not just have to stick to her guns because she was appointed specificaly because she was a CT2; or

b) an unkown who may turn out to be more liberal like Daddy Bush's Souter; or

c) an unknown somewhere in between.

Seeing as she is a woman who worked through school and didn't just skate by on daddy's money I am willing to bet "c" is more likely- and I am "happy" about that, because out of my realistic choices- I'll take a "c" over a CT2 any day.

HelloKitty22 · #52 10-04-2005, 07:20 PM

I'd be happy if she was just an O'Connor reincarnate or somewhere thereabout. I was alright with the status quo.

Exquisite5 · #53 10-04-2005, 07:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by HelloKitty22
I'd be happy if she was just an O'Connor reincarnate or somewhere thereabout. I was alright with the status quo.

Girl, I'd be ecstatic if that were the case.

OrigamiTulip · #54 10-27-2005, 09:03 AM

Harriet Miers has withdrawn her nomination to the Supreme Court.

KSigkid · #55 10-27-2005, 09:11 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by BetaRose
Harriet Miers has withdrawn her nomination to the Supreme Court.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/10/...ons/index.html

I can't say I'm shocked by this news.

moe.ron · #56 10-27-2005, 09:28 AM

not shocking at all. I thought she would have withdrawn her nomination weeks ago.

AGDee · #57 10-27-2005, 10:26 AM

They predicted on the Today show this morning that she would do it just before the indictments came down in the Rove case so that it wouldn't be big news for long.

Rudey · #58 10-27-2005, 10:58 AM

Good.

Now let's get a nominee that's been a conservative on record.

-Rudey

Kevin · #59 10-27-2005, 09:20 PM

Bush's next nominee will be his house maid from Crawford -- both hispanic and female I hear.

DeltAlum · #60 10-29-2005, 03:11 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by ktsnake
Bush's next nominee will be his house maid from Crawford -- both hispanic and female I hear.

But only if she can prove to be a documented worker.