Skip to comments.Whining about Miers.
Posted on 10/08/2005 9:52:18 AM PDT by Allen H
Since Im sure there are still many conservatives out there who are still upset and whining about Bush not nominating who they wanted, Im 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 dont think anyone can argue about the fact that the Republican majority in the Senate havent exactly acted with a spine or any kind of united strong conservative voice the four years theyve 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, its 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 thats the kind of person I am, and I was hoping they'd of gotten this nomination. Im 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 wouldnt expect to be nominated for the SCOTUS either. Being that way is not bad in any way, but it is a problem. Its 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 hasnt been one single Judge on the district, appellate or federal court level that Bush has nominated that hasnt been a strong unbending conservative. And this is one fact I STILL cant 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 isnt good enough to be a judge herself when shes accomplished all the things shes done in her life? That is simply the stupidest thing Ive ever heard. Especially after its 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 isnt 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 Luddigs and Joness, Ive still seen nothing that yet shows shes any less conservative than they are. When she gave money to algore, he was pro-life and hadnt 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 Ive heard of who has worked with her and doesnt support her, and that was years ago and its not as though Frum doesnt have his own agenda. None of Bushs judges has disappointed. Theyve 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 hasnt 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 shes 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 shes 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 cant 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 Petes 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 hes 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.
That has been the pattern, at least it seems so to me.
One must admit, the tactic does effectively stifle the opposition's objections.
You could have something there. Maybe that explains why so many libs are pleased with her nomination.
Good points, well said. Harriet vetted all Bush's judicial nominees, and that's extremely reassuring. (Cheney vetted Bush's original V.P. list and we did quite well there.)
If this is the "final straw", then they were never true to the core conservatives anyhow. They, like McCain, should be driven from the party, but I've never been one to support a "big tent" philosophy in the first place..I know it's a necessary step to succeeding with our agenda.
Says who? I see ample evidence and so do a good many other folks that I deeply trust!
This appointment is the 3rd stupidest thing Bush has done. #1 is letting the deficit spiral out of control, and #2 is letting illegal immigration spiral out of control. I held my nose on the first two stupid things, not realizing that Bush was going to do a 3rd stupid thing.
1. The deficit is NOT "spiraling out of control".
2. I don't like like the fact that our immigration laws are not being enforced any better than you do but to say that it is entirely Bush's fault is pure BS. The congress has some culpability here as well!
3. I'm firmly convinced that the Miers nomination is anything but a "stupid thing"! In fact, it may well turn out to be a brilliant thing!
The worst mistake this president has made is failing to use his veto pen on that god awful McCain Feingold (campaign finance) bill!
For or against, this has to be one of the biggest vanity generating subjects ever.
What evidence have you that any of these jurists have illustrated a Biblical world view in his/her opinions or writings?
No, "conservatives" like you are what damages the conservative movement by forming opinions about someone you do not know, and pulling away from Bush who does know her, and attacking Miers, who has a proven track record of being a legal conservative, strong Christian, and pro-life activist. YOU hurt the conservative movement by speaking on what you THINK MAY happen, isntead of being thoughtful and having the samllest amount of faith in what most likely WILL HAPPEN. Bush knows this woman and has for years. Reagan didn't know o'conner or kennedy, Bush 41 didn't know suiter. Bush KNOWS Miers and has for MANY YEARS. Did you trust him when you voted for him or not?
I'm with on this matter but it would be most helpful to my tired old eyes if you could insert a < p > here and there to break those posts up into readable paragraphs.
This is a tired argument, that is fearing that a more qualified candidate may not get confirmed. If the WH nominated Meirs not out of weakness - as Rush says - but out of such tiredness, then they should resign as a group. Like a shark, you either move forward or you're dead, and if the WH is too tired to move forward, then step aside and let some young blood in right now - resign and don't wait for the next election.
"This nomination is actually the final straw for many conservatives."
Yeah, so they leave the party and ultra lefties take over power. We saw what happened when conservatives broke up over Perot...we got Clinton for 8 long years....the next dem prez will be far worse than Clinton...he or she will be a pawn of soros and gang....good bye democracy hello communism.
Bunch of pouting crybabies....yuck!
I trust the President.
I am a Christian conservative and I endorse Harriet Miers.
Excellent! From a tactical genius to the ears of political babes. And when your Generals (or Senators as the case may be) are a bunch of wusses, you definitely don't fight when you don't have to, if you can accomplish the same objective without the fight.
Fine, replace his name with Luttig or Owens or Clement or whoever you want. What do you think of my point?
And if Bush had done that, and all the Rhinos and moderate mccainites didn't have the will to back a Janice Rogers Brown, and she or Luddig lost the nomination, would that stand on principle to pick a fight still be a great idea? That's how we got kennedy and souter in the first place remember????? The result is the important thing here, not the means by which the result is accomplished. If 20 years from now, she's considered to be a strong conservative who always found with Scalia and Thomas, isn't that what matters? Janice Rogers Brown by the way is a libertarian, and has some funny ideas about some things, so I wouldn't necessarily bank on the idea that she would be a female version of Clarence Thomas.
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.