When Sandra Day O'Connor stepped down from the Supreme Court, President Bush had an opportunity to prove that he really is a uniter, rather than a divider. He could have consulted with senators from both parties and nominated a judge who values those freedoms that Americans hold dear.
But President Bush failed to do so. Instead, he has chosen one of the most divisive nominees available, one who has received the lowest ranking ever from [Group to be determined later]. President Bush's nominee favors Republican special interests, rather than individual freedom. The nominee is also an incredibly divisive figure, as can be seen in any number of the opinions he has written over his checkered judicial history.
Democratic senators are incredibly disappointed that President Bush has politicized the judicial process and chosen such a divisive nominee to replace Sandra Day O'Connor. These sorts of extremist judges should not be allowed in the judiciary at all ... and certainly not on the highest court in the land.
When he's not writing forward-looking commentary, Pennywit writes at Pennywit.com.
Psst ... read the category before responding.
Permalink | Linking Blogs | Sphere: Related Content | Digg this! | FARK It!
Filed under:
Humor
Comments (13)
Why is this humor? I call i... (Below threshold)1. Posted by bill | July 1, 2005 4:21 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Why is this humor? I call it predicting the future.
It really isn't hard to write this stuff, just leave the names blank until they identify themselves as to who is going to play what role.
1. Posted by bill | July 1, 2005 4:21 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on July 1, 2005 16:21
2. Posted by Mark A. | July 1, 2005 4:37 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Sounds like a typical AP story: Premature, leftist boiler plate, and uninformitive. I bet the blanks will be filled in by Wednesday, and it will be published otherwise intact.
Good job.
2. Posted by Mark A. | July 1, 2005 4:37 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on July 1, 2005 16:37
3. Posted by Inquiring | July 1, 2005 4:42 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
I agree with bill, this should be crossfiled under Precognition.
3. Posted by Inquiring | July 1, 2005 4:42 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on July 1, 2005 16:42
4. Posted by SilverBubble | July 1, 2005 4:55 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
"President Bush had an opportunity to prove that he really is a uniter, rather than a divide.
"But President Bush failed to do so."
Translation: Bush has a chance to do what Democrats want by caving in and letting them run the show. Instead, he sided with his own political party and did what he has every right to do by choosing his own nominations instead of bowing down to the great god that is the Democratic Party.
(Yes, I know this is humor. I'm playing along.)
4. Posted by SilverBubble | July 1, 2005 4:55 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on July 1, 2005 16:55
5. Posted by pennywit | July 1, 2005 5:07 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Well, Silver, if you'd just pay attention to the nominees' rulings, you would know that the Democrats are absolutely right.
--|PW|--
5. Posted by pennywit | July 1, 2005 5:07 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on July 1, 2005 17:07
6. Posted by JP | July 1, 2005 5:23 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
The nominee is also an incredibly divisive figure, as can be seen in any number of the opinions he has written over his checkered judicial history.
How do you know Bush will nominate a man? I mean, other than the fact he'll be nominating a white, Christian redneck male (/sarcasm). But for arguments sake, maybe a he/she is in order.
Great post. Send it to the NY Times, and tell them to fill in the blanks after the nomination.
jp
6. Posted by JP | July 1, 2005 5:23 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on July 1, 2005 17:23
7. Posted by tee bee | July 1, 2005 6:04 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Pennywit, it scares me when people channel Hillary. I was impressionable during the Clinton years, and I still cringe whenever I see the face or hear the voice of the White Witch.
Then again, you could always make some extra cash ghost-writing speeches and press releases for her.
JP, are you suggesting that Bush nominate Kim Catrall for the post?
7. Posted by tee bee | July 1, 2005 6:04 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on July 1, 2005 18:04
8. Posted by kbiel | July 1, 2005 6:19 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
pennywit,
It won't be very humorous when you find your template has been plagerized by Dean, Kennedy, Reid, and/or Pelosi.
8. Posted by kbiel | July 1, 2005 6:19 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on July 1, 2005 18:19
9. Posted by pettydemon | July 1, 2005 7:54 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Courtesy of Michael Medved:
today Pres. Bush confounded all his critics as well as his supporters by nominating renowned Constitutional scholar Anne Coulter to replace Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court.
At least the opinions would be funnier...
9. Posted by pettydemon | July 1, 2005 7:54 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on July 1, 2005 19:54
10. Posted by McGehee | July 2, 2005 10:22 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
The opinions? Who cares about the opinions? If Bush nominated Ann Coulter, Harry Reid, Ted Kennedy and Barbara Boxer would spontaneously combust.
Now that would be funny.
10. Posted by McGehee | July 2, 2005 10:22 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on July 2, 2005 10:22
11. Posted by Xrlq | July 2, 2005 9:51 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
The smart money says it's a "she." Once Clarence Thomas took over the black seat from Thurgood Marshall, the precedent was set.
11. Posted by Xrlq | July 2, 2005 9:51 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on July 2, 2005 21:51
12. Posted by -S | July 3, 2005 12:03 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
"...Republican special interests..."
Like, say, the values of the majority of the United States?
Democrats only want "liberal special interests," like, say, special rights for the 'specially interested.
I think your fantasy piece is a great representation of what Democrats can't seem to understand, and yet expect everyone else to somehow abide by. It's as if the country should just be imagined and not realized.
12. Posted by -S | July 3, 2005 12:03 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on July 3, 2005 00:03
13. Posted by Mike | July 5, 2005 1:50 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
When Kennedy, Clinton, et al., finally do react to a real, living, breathing nominee, Pennywit will probably be able to sue them for copyright infringement and have them brought up on ethics charges for plagiarism.
Register that copyright soon, for bonus points (statutory damages and attorney's fees)
13. Posted by Mike | July 5, 2005 1:50 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on July 5, 2005 13:50