Time to see what one of our favorite wingnut columnists thinks about this whole Miers nomination thing. So bring out Mrs. Kaye Grogan:
If President Bush picked Jesus Christ for the U.S. Supreme Court, the liberals would crucify him again.
You mean crucify Jesus again . . . right? As opposed to, you know, Bush? Because I don’t think we liberals crucified Bush before, so I don’t see how we could do it "again".
Come to think of it, I don’t think we liberals crucified Jesus either. At least I didn’t read about that at Daily Kos.
It is obvious no matter who the president selects to fill vacant spots on the high court there will be many who will insist they are not qualified, even if the nominees are overqualified. And since no one is perfect (except in their own eyes) the nay-sayers will press on intentionally trying to discredit everything and everybody associated with the Bush administration.
Unlike the conservatives who were so forgiving and supportive of Clinton, despite his flaws.
HA . . . as if they could do better!
That’s telling ’em, Kaye!
The liberals want justices legislating from the bench, who will make their own laws favoring their way-out agenda, while the conservatives want justices who will interpret the laws correctly and rule accordingly.
"Accordingly" to what?
And betwixt the two — common ground will never be reached.
‘Tis true. Methinks Kaye has a point.
Not only do I find it appalling that Harriet Miers has been attacked by the anti-Christian folks — I take it as a personal attack on all Christians. The anti-Christian groups are "infringing" upon the rights of Christians to worship freely.
Well, the people attacking Miers include such "anti-Christians" such as Alan Keyes, for whom you write your syndicated column.
Be that as it may, how does attacking an unqualified judge infringe on your ability to worship freely? I mean, if you are so inclined to worship Harriet Miers, criticism of her does not infringe your ability to do so. Yes?
This is a "blatant" disregard of Amendment I of the "Bill of Rights" where it states that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
You heard it hear first, folks: Criticizing Harriet Miers violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amemdment. And why? Because Kaye takes such attacks as a "personal attack on all Christians".
It is also up to congress to protect the religious rights of Americans — but the silence is deafening in the "halls of Congress" as they avoid confronting the abuse of Christians at the hands of the "godless" folks.
I hate deafening silence. I "really" do. It’s so loud, I can "hardly" hear anything. Well, except the wails and cries of the Christians that I am abusing. They sure can scream in agony.
Let’s "dissect" in laymen’s terms what religious freedom means.
Yes, "let’s".
(1) Congress cannot establish a mandatory religion and force it upon the citizens. (2) People of faith have a right to worship freely and openly without any restrictions. (3) It is up to the leaders to see that these inalienable rights are not infringed upon.
It also means that people of NON-faith are free not to have religion imposed upon them by the government.
I find it amusing that the anti-God folks are still using the feeble excuse to take "under God" out of the "Pledge of Allegiance" making the ridiculous argument that saying God in the pledge establishes a religion by the government. Now, most of us know that these troublemakers know better, they are just trying to get rid of what they view as hindrances — so they can be bad little boys and girls.
Right. Because those two words in the Pledge ("under God") are the only thing that keeps us troublemakers from being bad people. We all know that prior to 1954 (the year that "under God" was inserted into the Pledge), the entire country was full of bad little boys and girls. Including, our founding fathers.
If the little "fly on the wall" at the meeting of the Democrats could talk, it might say…
WTF did I just read? The "meeting of Democrats"? A "fly on the wall"? A talking fly on the wall? I sometimes wonder what, if anything, is between betwixt Kaye’s ears.
If the little "fly on the wall" at the meeting of the Democrats could talk, it might say: "many of the Democrats are supporting Harriet Miers, because her nomination is sparking a belligerent attitude toward President Bush by many of the Republican conservatives, particularly the Christian Republicans. Besides, since when has the Democrats supported anything the Bush administration has proposed?"
Okay. So let me get this straight.
According to the talking fly, Christian Republicans are belligerant toward Bush/Miers, and many Democrats are supporting Miers. Yet, mere paragraphs before, Kaye found it "appalling that Harriet Miers has been attacked by the anti-Christian folks".
So Kaye/fly, I guess I’m confused. Are you saying that Christian Republicans are anti-Christian?
Wise fly I would say — now if only it could actually talk.
You are free to worship the almighty talking fly, Kaye. Unless we bad little liberal boys and girls change the Pledge.
No matter what President Bush does the anti-Bush activists are geared up in their determination to try and make him appear in a bad light.
Well, he is making our job easy.
In a memo to Condoleezza Rice where he jotted down that he may have to go to the bathroom during a meeting — a big deal was made about this. This is pathetic!
Ummmmm… weren’t we talking about Harriet Miers?
And no matter what he did during the hurricane disasters — he was ridiculed.
Well, he didn’t do anything during Katrina. Or for a while thereafter either. That’s why he was ridiculed.
If he didn’t jet down to New Orleans, every day he was thoughtless and ignoring the citizens, because many are black and poor.
No, he wasn’t thoughtless and ignoring the citizens every day. Not after it was pointed out to him.
If he went to New Orleans, he was just grandstanding for photo opts.
Or sometimes even photo ops.
This reminds me of a bad comedy routine orchestrated by the Democrats.
Everything that President Bush says in his speeches, Senator (D) Dick Durbin is waiting to rant and rave about what he (intentionally) views as discrepancies or misleading untruths.
Just lurking there, that Durbin. Always waiting for Bush to wrap up so he can (intentionally) point out where Bush was wrong. Tch!
God help us if Durbin was in control of something as serious as the Iraqi invasion or anything else of a substantive nature.
Right. Durbin would have screwed the whole Iraqi thing up. Unlike Bush.
Evidently, Durbin is oblivious to how his rants are publicly bringing into question his ability to be effective in any type of leadership.
Evidently.
If his primary goal is to set himself up to run for president — he might consider retiring from the political arena instead.
Duly noted.
It is painstakingly obvious that the Democrats view abortion and other privacy rights much more important than the actual knowledge of the law a potential judicial nominee may possess.
Oh, I’m sorry. Are we back to Miers now?
Good grief . . . just give Harriet Miers an up or down vote — and be done with it!
Apparently, Kaye thinks there is a "filibuster" happening now (a "filibuster" being something Kaye read about a few months back).
And that’s just my opinion!
Or an incongruous hodgepodge of opinions, as the case may be. Thank you for sharing, Kaye!