Whee! It’s working! Louder kids, LOUDER!
Pot meet kettle. And you supported Clinton’s stance on what exactly? My life is not miserable–is yours? This is the forum to share strong opinions and feelings. See? We both can use to our advantage.
You are welcome to your opinion, but I will say here that I do not dislike this appointee just because Bush made it. I am concerned about this man’s stance on the environment and choice. I am also concerned about his ties to lobbying. But, yeah, it’s because the Evil One did it that I bitch here.
Get a grip, much?
Looks like Clothachump needs a hug. Anybody here had rabies shots?
If you’d bothered to read this thread, you’d have noticed that most liberals are cautiously optimistic. But let’s not let that stand in the way of your whining about how liberals whine.
Heaven knows I’ve done my fair share of griping here, and know that those gripes cannot be used to fully evaluate someone’s personality.
That said, though, your online persona is rather miserable at times - and accurately named, too, from the looks of things.
Not at all. There are plenty of pro-business positions that are consistent with improving the environment, and many more that are neutral on the topic. Whereas the so-called “pro-lifers” are always opposed to freedom of choice for women.
So far the most concerned I am is that he favors the illegalization of flag-burning. I want to read why he thinks Roe v. Wade should be overturned before judging there (there are actually a couple of legitimate reasons that, like Roe v. Wade itself, have relatively little to do with the ethics of abortion.
As for Ann Coulter, I think it’s a ruse: she’s for him, but knows if she openly supports him then liberals will have apoplexy.
Further information has added clothahump to this list.
But see, he’s already said that he will follow it since it is the law of the land. Why do you think he wants to overturn it?
In that case, I’d be interested in knowing more about his “pro-business” practices, just to judge for myself whether or not he is “pro-pollution”. I’m not saying he’s not, I’m saying I need more info.
The “illegalization”? :dubious:
Really now, people.
I’ve got to admit - I can see the possibility of his voting to overturn it. There’s a difference between following precedent on a lower court, and setting or overturning it on the high court. That said, the chances of getting a judge nominated who is committed to not overturning it from out of the Bush administration are nil.
That’s the lamest thing I’ve seen in this thread yet. Are you kidding? The incredible things she’s said about “liberals” could fill volumes, and only now she cares enough to tone it down about a candidate virtually guaranteed to be approved by the Congress? Tell me another one. If Ann Coulter doesn’t like this guy it’s because he’s capable of rational thought and and reasonable decision making, neither of which she has proven capable of at any time.
I’m someone else who’s looking at him with cautious optimism, in part because some conservatives consider him too liberal. I also gather that, while he may not agree with Roe v. Wade, he doesn’t favor overturning prior decisions, so he may not vote to overturn it. I’m admitting it in public: I think George W. Bush may have done the right thing.
CJ
And again it must be noted that this was an argument advanced by an administration that he worked for at the time, which instructed him to argue such.
I don’t know that Roberts is for or against making flag burning illegal. Implying such from arguments made in his official capacity is flawed reasoning, for reasons I noted above.
There is a word in common English: umbrage. Look it up.
I was making a joke by using twisting the word’s syllables.
Now my flabber is gasted, but I am also laughing my ass off.
Thanks for making my morning!
How nice of you to share.
Thank you.
Ann Coulter is also disappointed in this choice.
Look, can we at least learn some more about the guy before he gets thrown under the bus?
Are you suggesting that he would argue a position that he didn’t personally hold just because he was instructed to do so by the Administration? Doesn’t it stretch credulity to think that a Solicitor General would ever be hired by an Administration that didn’t know that he was on the same page?
The President: “Well, as you know, I believe that all black people should be rounded up and shot.”
Solicitor General Candidate: “I’m afraid I disagree, but if that’s what you want me to argue, I’ll have a draft brief written up after lunch. Now, about my parking space…”
Don’t lawyers do this all the time? They’re payed to argue for you, not agree with you.