Posted on 10/08/2005 9:52:18 AM PDT by Allen H
Since I’m sure there are still many conservatives out there who are still upset and whining about Bush not nominating who they wanted, I’m wondering. Do you wish Bush had nominated who you wanted, even if it meant them not being confirmed and Bush being forced to pick a milk toast? I don’t think anyone can argue about the fact that the Republican majority in the Senate haven’t exactly acted with a spine or any kind of united strong conservative voice the four years they’ve been a majority. And it seems the larger their majority gets, the more its spine gets watered down.
This is a reality lesson in life. There are two ways to stand strong to your convictions and beliefs and not waiver. You can go about your life, putting your beliefs into practice, never bending, never breaking, never compromising, and whenever anyone asks what you believe, you tell them, politely, civilly, like how Miers has done it. OR, you can do it another way. You can be all those same things above, and you can also be very vocal, very "in your face", very confrontational, outspoken, and be very well known as to what you believe and stand for, so that if you come up for a position like Supreme Court Justice, it’s known immediately which side of the court you will always come down on. The Scalia / Thomas side, or the Ginsburg / Stevens side. The latter is the kind of person that Michael Luddig, Pricilla Owens, Edith Jones, or David Pryor, who I would sure support. Frankly that’s the kind of person I am, and I was hoping they'd of gotten this nomination. I’m not quite "in your face" with liberals unless confronted, but I also will not sit like a wall flower while people say stupid liberal things in the face of reality. I wouldn’t expect to be nominated for the SCOTUS either. Being that way is not bad in any way, but it is a problem. It’s guaranteeing a nasty, long, drawn out, ugly fight that would not even guarantee ALL the Republicans standing with the President. If Bush thought that the Republican majority in the Senate actually had a spine and would stand up to a fight, I think he would have likely put up someone like Juddig or Jones. I think this pick is an indictment on the complete and total lack of conservative will in the Senate majority. Heck, this woman he did pick stands as a solid conservative nominee with all those who have endorsed her, and not all Republicans are backing her. The bottom line is, Harriet Miers WILL be confirmed, and she much more likely than not, will prove to be a conservative, indications show she will be much like Scalia and Thomas. And if you voted for President Bush both times, like I did, or just one time, then you have to trust that he will keep his promise on Judges, like he has so faithfully kept it to this point. There hasn’t been one single Judge on the district, appellate or federal court level that Bush has nominated that hasn’t been a strong unbending conservative. And this is one fact I STILL can’t get around that frustrates me with those opposing Miers. Miers was pivotal in choosing ALL the Judges that Bush has nominated to all the courts the past five years, all of which have proven to be good solid conservatives that all the conservative voters have liked so much. Yet somehow the person who found, supported, and brought all those good conservative judges to the President, somehow isn’t good enough to be a judge herself when she’s accomplished all the things she’s done in her life? That is simply the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard. Especially after it’s been proven she said now she was worried that perhaps John Roberts might not be conservative enough. And some conservatives are still not supporting her? ARE YOU FRIKKEN KIDDING ME??? THAT is just simply elitism and nothing else.
I was worried initially, because I desperately wanted an Owens, or Luiddig, or someone just like them, someone that was nose to the wind, finger pointing and shaking to the left, well known vocal hard conservative, BUT, if the person put up instead of them is just like that, with the same conservative ideological beliefs, just isn’t a well known confrontational person who will unite all liberals and democrats and milk-toast weak RHINO Republicans against them, then I will choose the Miers over the Owens or Luddig EVERY TIME, because frankly I have NO FAITH in the Republican Senate majority, and while I am more like the judicial Luddig’s and Jones’s, I’ve still seen nothing that yet shows she’s any less conservative than they are. When she gave money to algore, he was pro-life and hadn’t taken the pink liberal without reason pill yet, and since then she has been nothing but a conservative loyalist on all levels, professionally, personally, and religiously. She voted for Reagan in ‘84, she voted for the first Bush in ‘88. Once she became a registered Republican she stayed Republican and voted and worked and donated that way even when clinton was President, even in ‘91 and ’92 when the democrats controlled both Houses of Congress. Not one person who really knows her has come out against her nomination. Frum is the only one I’ve heard of who has worked with her and doesn’t support her, and that was years ago and it’s not as though Frum doesn’t have his own agenda. None of Bush’s judges has disappointed. They’ve all been proven to be very conservative constructionist judges, and there is no reason to believe Miers will be any different. The arguments is stale and smacks of elitism at this point. I prefer someone who hasn’t been indoctrinated by the snobbery of Yale and Harvard liberalism, and has lived most all of her life in very conservative Texas. Even when Texas was majority Democrat, it was conservative and had nothing in common with the radical New England and left coast liberal bases of operation. Instead of being a judge she’s been actually arguing law from the conservative perspective, not sitting on high on a bench disconnected from reality. What is so wrong with that? She will be confirmed, and more and more, I believe she will prove herself to be a dedicated defender of the Constitution and what it REALLY says, not what stevens and souter and ginsburg wish or think it says. Her votes I believe will consistently fall right with Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas and John Roberts, and when that time comes, I hope all here who eviscerated her just because she’s not some elitist insider snob, or a speak first think second hothead that would inflame all democrats and RINOs in the Senate, will remember just how vacuous the opposition to her really was, and just how wrong it has proven to be. Given the past 20 years of her life, I can’t see any rational way she will betray all she has proven to stand for the past two decades. And if you voted for and supported W. Bush last year and in 2000, then for Pete’s sake, show just a little faith and trust in the guy and believe that he would have gotten to know this woman the past 10 years he’s had a close relationship with her. Have a little faith. With faith as small as a mustard seed, a mountain can be moved. I choose to have faith and pray that Harriet Miers will be the conservative strict-constructionist Justice that this nation desperately needs right now, and pray that she will have the strength and wisdom to adjudicate in that way, and continue to display and enforce the beliefs and convictions on the bench, that she has so strongly lived in her life.
I guess we'll just have to see what we see. Picking a fight just to pick a fight is NOT why you do it. And over the past five years I am more and more pissed at the so called "Republican majority" in the Senate who has proven time and again they are so moderated in their majority and not a strong conservative majority that will act like the majority, and have allowed the Senate to be held hostage by the democrat minority TIME AND AGAIN! I'm sick of that and have NO confidence in the Republicans in the Senate. Not as a majority. And do you not remember the fact that we got Kennedy and Suiter on the SCOTUS because the real hard conservatives were defeated? Well the fact is the Republican Senate majority of today does not act with anymore authority or sense of purpose than the Republican minority in the Senate did back then. That's just a fact. If the end result is that Miers is a strong conservative constructionist on the court, THAT IS ALL I CARE ABOUT! I would like to see a fight but that kind of deliberate confrontational state of mind is NOT what built the conservative majority. It was built on doing what was right being vocal about it and standing by it, and someone like Miers with her history and personal beliefs are clearly in line with that philosophy. The idea that it would be better somehow if she was some elitist harvard grad who had been a judge the past ten years and made all the beltway parties in D.C. is assinine on so many levels.
I won't be eating crow. She won't be making it in.
I'm saying that if the WH is not willing to put up for review a known conservative jurist - just as a Dem WH does on their side w liberal jurists - then why vote for Reps in the Senate in the first place? I'm saying that, yes, your argument is tired, and reflects poorly on the WH and the Senate. Neither you or I know what would happen in terms of an actual vote on Luttig or McConnell or Alito, or Thompson or Jones, etc. It may be true that JRB would probably fail, but the others are open to being voted in, if given a chance. And if the players are not so tired to try.
And Cedric accused me of boozing?
More of the Coulter-type slime.
I wondered when some knuckle-dragger would trot this out.
Please observe the First Rule Of Holes.
LOL! Man is that ever the truth! I love it!
OK. But this begs the question. How can you emphatically trust someone that for whatever reasons, fails to secure our borders, (during wartime yet) drives spending through the roof, and signs every social spending program that crosses his desk?
Hmm you gives me two choices...
#1.. whineing about Miers...
#2.. Goose stepping with the bots and being goosed by the boot of the bot, to my rear..
Hmmm..
We may have won the '92 election and avoided the 8 agonizing years (what a nightmare they were!) if we had run a conservative. Many interpreted the election as "new moderate" vs "old moderate," so the election was swung in the "new guy's" favor. I remember people believing that Clinton was more pro-life than Bush, Sr., etc. I was, in fact, a supporter of Bush, Sr. in 1992. I am far more conservative than he or his son, but I will vote for the better of the available candidates in each election.
If your objective is to get a person, any person, on the bench, then this comment would make sense. Our goal, and W's promise, was to get conservatives of the Scalia-Thomas stripe on the bench.
That objective was worth the fight. (And this kind of "fight" has no real casualties, supply lines, or terrain concerns, as Sun Tzu centered so much of his thought upon, making the application of his strategy even less meaningful.)
Once again, spineless Republicans think that they are somehow vulnerable when they stand up and proclaim that they want conservatives in government. Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. Pathetic.
There a big difference between actual combat and political wranging. I'm a political historian so please don't be coy. When lives are at stake and a nation is on the line, you do what you have to, even if it's not the safe choice. This is so different it's silly to even make the comparrison. Miers can easily accomplish the same thing that a Luddig type can accomplish on the SC, without the fight. And given how the Republican majority in the Senate has acted for five years with a total lack of resolve for conservative committment, I have no faith that a Luddig type would get through the Senate. The main goal is to get a conservative strict constructionist on the court, and I base my opinions on FACTS, NOT supposition. NOT coulda shoulda woulda. Bush 41 didn't even know Souter. Reagan didn't know O'conner or Kennedy. W. Bush knows Miers and has known her for over a decade, and she picked all the conservative Judges that Bush has put up the past five year, and have you noticed how not ONE OF THEM has turned out to be anything less than a strong constructionist conservative Judge? I'm sorry but even though I am scared of being burned with another suiter or o'conner, I just don't have that feeling this time. I believe that Miers will be a good conservative Justice that will prove that in time with her findings like Thomas and Scalia. That is all that matters. And I base that on what I know and people that know her personally. Not what MIGHT happen and people who never even sat in the same room with the woman. I prefer to base my opinions on something a little more substantial than supposition from people out of the loop.
It's stealth because the discussions and arguments are and will be more about what her positions are, and less about why her positions are the right ones under the Constitution.
BTW, stealth is not my only objection. I am concerned that a charge of cronyism is not incredible with this nomination.
how is it that she was good and conservative enough to pick Brown and Owens and Luddig and Pryor and Roberts, but she's not good enough to be a Justice herself with her long list of accomplishments the past 35 years? Please explain that to me.
You missed the thrust of my first post to you. She may be "to the right of Atilla the Hun," maybe she is more radically conservative than I am (but I doubt it =:-O). She might be great, but her nomination isn't. It's a risky way to advance constitutionalism.
And that is EXACTLY what those of you who INSIST that we must have a knock down drag out fight simply for the sake of having a knock down drag out fight generally accomplish with the effort!
..How can you emphatically trust someone that for whatever reasons, fails to secure our borders, (during wartime yet) drives spending through the roof, and signs every social spending program that crosses his desk?..
- I support and trust the president in his prosecution of the war on terror based on his actions since 9-11.
- I am deeply suspicious of any of his policies regarding immigration and border control because of his awful record in that area.
- I am completely opposed to his policies on spending and the budget.
- I support and trust the president in the appointment of Harriet Miers because of his excellent track record in this area.
This approach seems reasonable to me.
The Left is currently engaged in a furious attempt to convine Americans that Bush is incompetent and weak. If he'd have sent up a Luddig {for example} and Specter, Snowe, Collins, et al bolt and Bush loses the nomination fight, then what?
We are in agreement up to this point.
Well the fact is the Republican Senate majority of today does not act with anymore authority or sense of purpose than the Republican minority in the Senate did back then. That's just a fact.
Again, we agree.
If the end result is that Miers is a strong conservative constructionist on the court, THAT IS ALL I CARE ABOUT! I would like to see a fight but that kind of deliberate confrontational state of mind is NOT what built the conservative majority. It was built on doing what was right being vocal about it and standing by it...
You are on a roll.
The idea that it would be better somehow if she was some elitist harvard grad who had been a judge the past ten years and made all the beltway parties in D.C. is assinine on so many levels.
Here, you have me confused with someone else. You have been valiant defending your position, but so much activity, defending so many arguments, has falsely led you to attribute to me an argument I have not made. I think Miers will do well. The substance of my posts has been that the conservative movement fares better by openly stating its positions and proudly waving the banner--and if that stance demands a confrontation with our enemies, better now than later. If we can't get a capital C, vocal, known conservative into the Supreme Court with a Republican president and a Republican Senate, then the time is nigh to replace them. The president is acting like he is afraid to carry the conservative banner. My problem is not with Miers. It is with those who would delegitimize conservatism in the public eye.
As for the embryo-harvesting industry, look around at the major universities and research hospitals. Many of the "find-a-cure" disease associations do or fund Embryonic Stem Cell Research. That taxpayer funding can be used for any of this life-taking research is unethical and ridiculous.
Really? So if I lived in a neighborhood with a high murder and crime rate, with great potential for bad guys to sneak into my home and kill me, and I decided to refuse to lock my doors and windows and secure my home, would you trust me?
You inserted the word, "huge."
"By allowing for the federal funding for the research on 60 existing stem cell lines,"
There I've spelled it out for you. Now, you can get back to your shillin'.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.