July 20, 2005
-
The Democratic Party
Hypocrisy At Its Best
"Sen. Charles Schumer said he didn't like Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts Jr. the first time he appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee, and now the two will meet again for "a whole new ballgame" — one with much higher stakes."
Was this predictable or what?!? Members of the Democratic Party have shown the highest level of hypocrisy since the President announced his nominee. They claim they have to ask Roberts questions to see if he will be an judicial activist, to see if he will put his politics before the Constitution. Can you believe this? That’s exactly what liberals on the High Court have been doing for years! Democrats don’t care about the Constitution, unless Republican judges try to change it. The Democrats have been preparing for this judicial war since their beloved O’Conner resigned. They talked a bunch of crap about how the President should consult members of their party. So what does Bush do? He consults over 70 democrats on the issue! What does the Left want the President to do? He has the power to nominate someone to the bench. Don’t think for a minute folks, that if Bush had nominated any other conservative judge to the bench, there wouldn’t be a fight. It didn’t matter who it was, liberals would fight just about anyone who opposes their views.
Morrison
Comments (5)
Exactly. Exactly. No matter WHO Bush appointed,they'd find fault.....I'm glad he realized it and didn't try to please them. Memo to Dems: it may not be wise to pursue one of a Republican President's good friends with bogus accusations when he's searching for a Supreme Court nominee!
They would have been OK if Bush appeased them and picked a moderate, because they know it's not getting any better then that. But I'm glad Bush didn't choose to appease them. Bill Clinton's two appoitees are the two most liberal people on the court. He didn't appease us, and we didn't ask or expect him to.
Wow, phonomenal site, i know my spelling's bad. Im typing fast. I beleive that the more Democrats hate a Bush nominee i like the nominee more.
Of course, like all good & not so good conservatives, it's easy to overlook a few facts here. Justice O'Connor was appointed by conservative Ron Reagan in 1981, & unamiously confirmed by the Senate. Which I intrepret that to mean she appealed to both parties. & now somehow, Justice O'Connor has becomed "beloved" to the Democrats.
Does this mean the conservatives disavow all knowledge of her nefarious activities during her 25 years serving on the Supreme Court? Or just the decisions they didn't like? That Justice O'Connor had aligned herself with the Democratic dark side? And that she somehow hoodwinked the conservatives into believing she would be marching in lock step with only their agenda just to become confirmed? After which her humanity got hold of her, & she realized liberals do have some good ideas too?
Well then, pass out the elephant armbands, put on the brown shirts, start the marches, burn the books > well only those that don't support a conservative Christian viewpoint of course, & send those audacious liberals who dare to challenge any conservatives' nominees to the cleansing camp. The very idea of even asking one to clarify a few points is just absurd in the new world order!
Heil Bushman!!! Someone quick, come up with a sappy song. Best to do it to the tune of "Deutschland Uber Alles".
The headline says it all. Amen.
I'm back, by the way. lol
Comments are closed.