According to a news alert it's John Roberts...Court of Appeals for the D.C. circuit.
Not a woman, but still a good day.
<Doctors have concluded chocolate is GOOD for you>
<GO LANCE!>
Woo-hoo!!!
Get some popcorn; this is going to be quite a show.
Bush Nominates Judge John C. Roberts By DEB RIECHMANN, Associated Press Writer
5 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - President Bush chose federal appeals court judge John G. Roberts Jr. on Tuesday as his first nominee for the Supreme Court, selecting a rock solid conservative whose nomination could trigger a tumultuous battle over the direction of the nation's highest court, a senior administration official said.
ADVERTISEMENT
Bush offered the position to Roberts in a telephone call at 12:35 p.m. after a luncheon with the visiting prime minister of Australia, John Howard. He was to announce it later with a flourish in a nationally broadcast speech to the nation.
Roberts has been on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit since June 2003 after being picked for that seat by Bush.
Advocacy groups on the right say that Roberts, a 50-year-old native of Buffalo, N.Y., who attended Harvard Law School, is a bright judge with strong conservative credentials he burnished in the administrations of former Presidents Bush and Reagan. While he has been a federal judge for just a little more than two years, legal experts say that whatever experience he lacks on the bench is offset by his many years arguing cases before the Supreme Court.
Liberal groups, however, say Roberts has taken positions in cases involving free speech and religious liberty that endanger those rights. Abortion rights groups allege that Roberts is hostile to women's reproductive freedom and cite a brief he co-wrote in 1990 that suggested the Supreme Court overturn Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 high court decision that legalized abortion.
Seems Roberts was a good choice and one that will be hard for the Dems to demonize.
Heh.
that icon of republican values William F Buckley Jr:
had this to say:
Quote:The central question that emerges . . . is whether the White community in the South is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally, in areas in which it does not prevail numerically? The sobering answer is Yes-the White community is so entitled because, for the time being, it is the advanced race. It is not easy, and it is unpleasant, to adduce statistics evidencing the cultural superiority of White over Negro: but it is a fact that obtrudes, one that cannot be hidden by ever-so-busy egalitarians and anthropologists.
National Review believes that the South's premises are correct. . . . It is more important for the community, anywhere in the world, to affirm and live by civilized standards, than to bow to the demands of the numerical majority.
dys, I just had to do a search on Buckley's statement you posted, because I just had to make sure it didn't have any "lose ends." This is what I found, and draws some conclusions about George W Bush's form of "republicanism."
William F. Buckley, Jr.
Father of the Modern Conservative Movement. I've enjoyed his work over the last 30 or so years, too. But let's not forget who he is.
Source: The TIP, 2004-07-13
Candidate: Republican Party
Like the Father's of our Country, Buckley was born to a pre-disposition against the equality of mankind - womankind too for that matter. Here he is in 1957:
"The central question that emerges . . . is whether the White community in the South is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally, in areas in which it does not prevail numerically?
The sobering answer is Yes ? the White community is so entitled because, for the time being, it is the advanced race.
It is not easy, and it is unpleasant, to adduce statistics evidencing the cultural superiority of White over Negro: but it is a fact that obtrudes, one that cannot be hidden by ever-so-busy egalitarians and anthropologists."
Yes, Buckley was, and for all we know, is a bigot. Perhaps that is why his heir, George W. Bush, has refused to speak to the NAACP National Convention for the last four years!
More Buckley: "National Review believes that the South's premises are correct. . .
. It is more important for the community, anywhere in the world, to affirm and live by civilized standards, than to bow to the demands of the numerical majority."
So, perhaps its just as well the Democrats let the south go Republican. Do we really want the south:
Buckley: "The South confronts one grave moral challenge. It must not exploit the fact of Negro backwardness to preserve the Negro as a servile class. . . . Let the South never permit itself to do this. So long as it is merely asserting the right to impose superior mores for whatever period it takes to effect a genuine cultural equality between the races, and so long as it does so by humane and charitable means, the South is in step with civilization, as is the Congress that permits its to function."
Buckley is retiring from the magazine he founded, The National Review. Unfortunately, his presumption of entitlement is not retiring. He feels today much as he felt then, as today he insists, if he could, he would vote to deny civil rights to the gay and lesbian community. I guess he figures homosexuals aren't as advanced as he is. Let's see, Black Americans, Homosexual Americans, who else? Irish? Italians? Jews? Poles? Protestants? Just who is Buckley's equal, who is entitled to full citizenship?
Am I the only one here that didn't know that Hillary tried to join the Marines? Seems it was sometime back in the 70's...she was 27 or so. Said they discouraged her because she has such bad eyesight LOL.
Of course, her main reason for wanting to join up is because she loves the military so much.
JustGiggles, what was the reason you wanted to join the marines?
DyslexicOne, you just won me another bet
<So predictable LOL>
Thanks!
No matter how you slice it, the bubba vote has been the backbone of the republican party since Harry Trumans' nomination for president.
The Dems are saturated with racists, obviously.
I'm not worried that their racists may be superior to ours.
Lash
I recognize that your last post is tongue in cheek. But previously here, from you, fox and JW the claim has been advanced that the Dems are racist.
This is a destructive form of rhetoric. By that I mean it is destructive to your country's political discourse, thus to your country. That is equally true when made in the converse direction.
Such broad generalities, offered up from partisan positions and geared to smear do not reveal anything true, they merely discourage everyone from thinking carefully and clearly.
For example, with the present SC nominee, someone on the left could begin a PR campaign designed to paint the nomination and the administration and the RNC and Republicans generally as racist and sexist - Roberts is white and male. But such a claim would be disengenuous in the extreme. And its effect, if multiplied and repeated to the point where many considered it to be 'true' would be destructive - because it isn't true. It would be forwarding a falsehood and that helps no one.
Policies and strategies can be racist or sexist (Mehlman speaks of this element in the RNC's "southern strategy") and we understand the role of the contemporaneous Dem party in holding back legislation which, too, was effectively racist policy.
But THAT is the direction where our attention ought to be directed...to specific policies and strategies advanced by anyone which have a racist intent or consequence. And then, we have to be careful to get our data right and not be biased by partisan membership.
I have not seen that any of us have said categorically that the Dems are racist. We have simply expressed our opinions, backed up by stacks of evidence, that the GOP is not the party of racism as you and some others seem to wish to portray it. If you want to go tit for tat using anecdotal evidence for your accusations, we have shown that the Democrats substantially come out worse than the GOP does on that score.
Nobody has said there are no racists in the GOP or that all Democrats are racist. When it comes to political initiatives in these matters however, the GOP's track record is more exemplary (anti-racist) than is the Democrats' track record.
Like Reagan said and Fox apparently agrees "Facts are stupid things"
Southern Strategy: The race question has haunted Reagan and the GOP for decades
Web Exclusive | Nation
Lott, Reagan and Republican Racism
If the GOP wants to attract black voters, argues TIME's Jack White, it must confront the legacy not only of Trent Lott, but also of former President Reagan
By JACK WHITE
<waiting for blatham to show up and chide CI>
Lash wrote:<waiting for blatham to show up and chide CI>
You aren't holding your breath while you wait, I trust?
Yeah, good luck with that Lash.
