OT: BUSH Should Nominate (Either) CLINTON to The Supreme Court

Think about it. He'll never be able to get a loyalist through the nomination
process, which means he'll just have to settle for a vaguely conservative
nominee who'll more than likely blossom into a liberal on down the road. So,
why not cut your losses and go for the real deal and nominate Bill or
Hillary? Bush has gotten to know and like the Clintons and either of these
esteemed, qualified and patriotic Americans could be counted on, they and
Bush will assure us, to discharge his/her duties adhering to strict legal
precepts with no influence from ideological beliefs. Bush gets props for
reaching out and being "non-political." The country will get a good,
hard-working Supreme Court Justice. There's no downside. Whattayathink?

Curtin/Dobbs

> Whattayathink?

I think you should put down the crack pipe before posting.

Kingo Gondo

On Sat, 2 Jul 2005 23:51:49 -0700, "Curtin/Dobbs"
<curtin-> wrote:

>Think about it. He'll never be able to get a loyalist through the nomination
>process, which means he'll just have to settle for a vaguely conservative
>nominee who'll more than likely blossom into a liberal on down the road. So,
>why not cut your losses and go for the real deal and nominate Bill or
>Hillary? Bush has gotten to know and like the Clintons and either of these
>esteemed, qualified and patriotic Americans could be counted on, they and
>Bush will assure us, to discharge his/her duties adhering to strict legal
>precepts with no influence from ideological beliefs. Bush gets props for
>reaching out and being "non-political." The country will get a good,
>hard-working Supreme Court Justice. There's no downside. Whattayathink?
>

No point in appointing two marginal, backwoods lawyers just to be
conciliatory to the vermin in the Democratic party. Bush should
do his darndest to appoint a right winger to replace O'Connor.

RichA

"Curtin/Dobbs" babbled:

> Think about it. He'll never be able to get a loyalist through the
> nomination process, which means he'll just have to settle for a vaguely
> conservative nominee who'll more than likely blossom into a liberal on
> down the road. So, why not cut your losses and go for the real deal and
> nominate Bill or Hillary? Bush has gotten to know and like the Clintons
> and either of these esteemed, qualified and patriotic Americans could be
> counted on, they and Bush will assure us, to discharge his/her duties
> adhering to strict legal precepts with no influence from ideological
> beliefs. Bush gets props for reaching out and being "non-political." The
> country will get a good, hard-working Supreme Court Justice. There's no
> downside. Whattayathink?

And people wonder why this country is so ****ed up.

T.B.

TB

Curtin/Dobbs <curtin-> wrote:

> Think about it.

Wow, how very precise.

> He'll never be able to get a loyalist through the nomination process,
> which means he'll just have to settle for a vaguely conservative nominee
> who'll more than likely blossom into a liberal on down the road.

Not ever?

> So, why not cut your losses and go for the real deal and nominate Bill
> or Hillary?

I am a free, I can do whatever I want.

> Bush has gotten to know and like the Clintons and either of these
> esteemed, qualified and patriotic Americans could be counted on, they and
> Bush will assure us, to discharge his/her duties adhering to strict legal
> precepts with no influence from ideological beliefs.

Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.

> Bush gets props for reaching out and being "non-political".

Classic invective, as expected from someone who lacks a logical argument.

> The country will get a good, hard-working Supreme Court Justice.

Classic lack of specificity.

> There's no downside.

No there isn't.

> Whattayathink?

Classic attribution problems again.

Fred is back

On Sat, 2 Jul 2005 23:51:49 -0700, "Curtin/Dobbs"
<curtin-> wrote:

>Think about it. He'll never be able to get a loyalist through the nomination
>process, which means he'll just have to settle for a vaguely conservative
>nominee who'll more than likely blossom into a liberal on down the road. So,
>why not cut your losses and go for the real deal and nominate Bill or
>Hillary? Bush has gotten to know and like the Clintons and either of these
>esteemed, qualified and patriotic Americans could be counted on, they and
>Bush will assure us, to discharge his/her duties adhering to strict legal
>precepts with no influence from ideological beliefs. Bush gets props for
>reaching out and being "non-political." The country will get a good,
>hard-working Supreme Court Justice. There's no downside. Whattayathink?
>
Even if we accept that either one is "patriotic" and "qualified", how
do we reconcile that they have demonstrated that they are each willing
to make decisions and take actions with no regard for the law?
Charlie Hoffpauir
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~charlieh/

Charlie Hoffpauir

Charlie Hoffpauir wrote:
> On Sat, 2 Jul 2005 23:51:49 -0700, "Curtin/Dobbs"
> <curtin-> wrote:
>
>
>>Think about it. He'll never be able to get a loyalist through the nomination
>>process, which means he'll just have to settle for a vaguely conservative
>>nominee who'll more than likely blossom into a liberal on down the road. So,
>>why not cut your losses and go for the real deal and nominate Bill or
>>Hillary? Bush has gotten to know and like the Clintons and either of these
>>esteemed, qualified and patriotic Americans could be counted on, they and
>>Bush will assure us, to discharge his/her duties adhering to strict legal
>>precepts with no influence from ideological beliefs. Bush gets props for
>>reaching out and being "non-political." The country will get a good,
>>hard-working Supreme Court Justice. There's no downside. Whattayathink?
>>
>
> Even if we accept that either one is "patriotic" and "qualified", how
> do we reconcile that they have demonstrated that they are each willing
> to make decisions and take actions with no regard for the law?
> Charlie Hoffpauir
> http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~charlieh/

As though that is somehow different than the current resident of the
White House...

Frank Sereno

On Sun, 03 Jul 2005 14:48:40 GMT, Frank Sereno
<> wrote:

>Charlie Hoffpauir wrote:
>> On Sat, 2 Jul 2005 23:51:49 -0700, "Curtin/Dobbs"
>> <curtin-> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Think about it. He'll never be able to get a loyalist through the nomination
>>>process, which means he'll just have to settle for a vaguely conservative
>>>nominee who'll more than likely blossom into a liberal on down the road. So,
>>>why not cut your losses and go for the real deal and nominate Bill or
>>>Hillary? Bush has gotten to know and like the Clintons and either of these
>>>esteemed, qualified and patriotic Americans could be counted on, they and
>>>Bush will assure us, to discharge his/her duties adhering to strict legal
>>>precepts with no influence from ideological beliefs. Bush gets props for
>>>reaching out and being "non-political." The country will get a good,
>>>hard-working Supreme Court Justice. There's no downside. Whattayathink?
>>>
>>
>> Even if we accept that either one is "patriotic" and "qualified", how
>> do we reconcile that they have demonstrated that they are each willing
>> to make decisions and take actions with no regard for the law?
>> Charlie Hoffpauir
>> http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~charlieh/
>
>As though that is somehow different than the current resident of the
>White House...

Well, I doubt that even George W.'s most ardent backer would suggest
that HE was a good candidate for the Supreme Court. The qualificatons
for a Supreme Court Justice and President of the US are so different
that I would venture that the two positions are fundamentally
incompatible. Many historians feel that FDR was a great President....
but remember he tried to "pack" the Court to further his agenda....
hardly a move that indicated he would have been an effective Justice.
Charlie Hoffpauir
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~charlieh/

Charlie Hoffpauir

Charlie Hoffpauir wrote:

> On Sun, 03 Jul 2005 14:48:40 GMT, Frank Sereno
> <> wrote:
>
>
>>Charlie Hoffpauir wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 2 Jul 2005 23:51:49 -0700, "Curtin/Dobbs"
>>><curtin-> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Think about it. He'll never be able to get a loyalist through the nomination
>>>>process, which means he'll just have to settle for a vaguely conservative
>>>>nominee who'll more than likely blossom into a liberal on down the road. So,
>>>>why not cut your losses and go for the real deal and nominate Bill or
>>>>Hillary? Bush has gotten to know and like the Clintons and either of these
>>>>esteemed, qualified and patriotic Americans could be counted on, they and
>>>>Bush will assure us, to discharge his/her duties adhering to strict legal
>>>>precepts with no influence from ideological beliefs. Bush gets props for
>>>>reaching out and being "non-political." The country will get a good,
>>>>hard-working Supreme Court Justice. There's no downside. Whattayathink?
>>>>
>>>
>>>Even if we accept that either one is "patriotic" and "qualified", how
>>>do we reconcile that they have demonstrated that they are each willing
>>>to make decisions and take actions with no regard for the law?
>>>Charlie Hoffpauir
>>>http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~charlieh/
>>
>>As though that is somehow different than the current resident of the
>>White House...
>
>
> Well, I doubt that even George W.'s most ardent backer would suggest
> that HE was a good candidate for the Supreme Court. The qualificatons
> for a Supreme Court Justice and President of the US are so different
> that I would venture that the two positions are fundamentally
> incompatible. Many historians feel that FDR was a great President....
> but remember he tried to "pack" the Court to further his agenda....
> hardly a move that indicated he would have been an effective Justice.
> Charlie Hoffpauir

I'm not making the suggestion that George W Bush would make a good
Justice. My point is that the current administration seems to have no
problem disregarding International law and treaties. And many people
contend the Patriot Act was an affront to Americans' rights. But as far
a President serving as a Supreme Court Justice, hasn't President William
Howard Taft been considered to have been an excellent jurist? He only
became the Chief Justice.

And in an interesting twist in history, Harry Truman, Democrat, chose
Ohio US Senator Harold Burton, a Republican, to serve on the US Supreme
Court. So not only has history shown that a Senator can become a
Supreme Court Justice, but that it is possible for a President to pick a
nominee from the opposite party. There may be even more such examples,
but I didn't take the time to do further research.

Of course, the country wasn't so polarized then. And I don't think that
either Clinton would stand a snowball's chance in a 500 degree oven of
getting through the confirmation process. Whether they are qualified
and capable doesn't really matter in this current political climate.

And with that, I'll refrain from commenting further.

Frank Sereno

On Sun, 03 Jul 2005 16:52:04 GMT, Frank Sereno
<> wrote:

>Charlie Hoffpauir wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 03 Jul 2005 14:48:40 GMT, Frank Sereno
>> <> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Charlie Hoffpauir wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 2 Jul 2005 23:51:49 -0700, "Curtin/Dobbs"
>>>><curtin-> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Think about it. He'll never be able to get a loyalist through the nomination
>>>>>process, which means he'll just have to settle for a vaguely conservative
>>>>>nominee who'll more than likely blossom into a liberal on down the road. So,
>>>>>why not cut your losses and go for the real deal and nominate Bill or
>>>>>Hillary? Bush has gotten to know and like the Clintons and either of these
>>>>>esteemed, qualified and patriotic Americans could be counted on, they and
>>>>>Bush will assure us, to discharge his/her duties adhering to strict legal
>>>>>precepts with no influence from ideological beliefs. Bush gets props for
>>>>>reaching out and being "non-political." The country will get a good,
>>>>>hard-working Supreme Court Justice. There's no downside. Whattayathink?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Even if we accept that either one is "patriotic" and "qualified", how
>>>>do we reconcile that they have demonstrated that they are each willing
>>>>to make decisions and take actions with no regard for the law?
>>>>Charlie Hoffpauir
>>>>http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~charlieh/
>>>
>>>As though that is somehow different than the current resident of the
>>>White House...
>>
>>
>> Well, I doubt that even George W.'s most ardent backer would suggest
>> that HE was a good candidate for the Supreme Court. The qualificatons
>> for a Supreme Court Justice and President of the US are so different
>> that I would venture that the two positions are fundamentally
>> incompatible. Many historians feel that FDR was a great President....
>> but remember he tried to "pack" the Court to further his agenda....
>> hardly a move that indicated he would have been an effective Justice.
>> Charlie Hoffpauir
>
>I'm not making the suggestion that George W Bush would make a good
>Justice. My point is that the current administration seems to have no
>problem disregarding International law and treaties. And many people
>contend the Patriot Act was an affront to Americans' rights. But as far
>a President serving as a Supreme Court Justice, hasn't President William
>Howard Taft been considered to have been an excellent jurist? He only
>became the Chief Justice.
>

I got your point.... I did not think you were advocating George W.

>And in an interesting twist in history, Harry Truman, Democrat, chose
>Ohio US Senator Harold Burton, a Republican, to serve on the US Supreme
>Court. So not only has history shown that a Senator can become a
>Supreme Court Justice, but that it is possible for a President to pick a
>nominee from the opposite party. There may be even more such examples,
>but I didn't take the time to do further research.
>
>Of course, the country wasn't so polarized then. And I don't think that
> either Clinton would stand a snowball's chance in a 500 degree oven of
>getting through the confirmation process. Whether they are qualified
>and capable doesn't really matter in this current political climate.
>

Absolutely right.

>And with that, I'll refrain from commenting further.

No need for further comments. You've made you point well. I'm sorry
you misinterpreted my post, but I hope this clarifies it.


Charlie Hoffpauir
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~charlieh/

Charlie Hoffpauir