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.
If John Kerry had nominated Lawrence Tribe there would not have been a single Democrat-or liberal-ashamed of the choice.
The Democratic Party would not have to defend the paucity of scholarship on the part of Tribe.
What's more, the Democrats would not have experienced the political backlash generated by nominating someone who is so obviously unqualified for this position.
I am not a Democrat.
I am not a radical leftist.
I have veneration for the U.S. Constitution, and to me the law is a sacred, inviolable institution.
So to compare me-or others here-to a group that has no such respect for this nation's bedrock legal document is not only inapt, but is rather insulting.
So many of the Bush sycophants over the past week have invoked the damage being inflicted upon the Republican Party because of the turmoil caused by the Miers nomination.
Forget for a moment that President Bush is the one solely culpable for this dismal state of affairs.
What I want to make clear is that this trauma demonstrates that there is a significant number of conservatives-hopefully a majority-who aren't willing to renounce the values that they have spent their lifetimes cherishing and advocating in the public square merely in order to satisfy the parochial interests of one man.
From my perspective, that's something to be proud of.
Congratulations. Why?
Why?
A friendly word of advice, not pertaining to the content of your posts: if you use paragraphs, it is MUCH easier to read.
Just a suggestion.
SD
That's something more and more that I've been feeling and noticing. The "conservatives" who oppose her are more and more the secular conservatives who tend to moderate on the real backbone of Christian conservative issues. And THAT has been the problem with the courts. The bill kristols of the conservative movements have been FAR LESS reliable and trustworthy when it comes to really fighting and upholding strong conservative values than have been the Harriet Miers of the conservative movement who have proven to be strong and unbending in standing up for Christian conservative values. Secular conservatives are not what built the Republican majority in the first place, and people need to remember that. It was the Christian conservative movement that created this majority, and that is the camp to which Harriet Miers belongs.
Your premise is wrong. It's not that conservatives are upset and "whining" about all the time and effort spent to finally get some conservative justices on the Supreme Court and Bush not nominating who we wanted. It is about Bush promising to nominate justices "in the mold of Scalia and Thomas" and then Bush failing to keep that promise and instead nominating an unqualified political crony. This nomination is indefensible and it is truly disheartening to see so many so-called conservatives defending it.
Exactly. :)
If the founders had intended to restrict service on SCOTUS to a VERY narrow segment of society such as "judges with proven track records" they could easily have done so! They chose not to do that.
Huh?
That's about as significant as the last capture of Zarqawi's second in command.
Anybody who thinks President Bush is a conservative, is living in the land of denial. No vetos, out of control spending, wishy washy Supreme Court nominees, making the federal government much bigger, open border policy. The one positive is he is better than Kerry. Of course, you can't blame him alone, the Republican controlled Congress has gone off the tracks too. They were so much better when they had Clinton in the White House to battle.
The bottom line, man gets too careless and seduced by power when there is no opposing force. That is why only people born from above with an incorruptible nature, incapable of sinning, and immune to the influence of Satan, can run this planet. In other words, only Jesus Christ FULL salvation, the COMPLETE redemption of body, soul, and spirit of mankind will bring an end to 6000 years of wars, disease, death, and misery. Until that day all we can do is pray for our leaders, do the best we can in spite of our fallen condition, and wait for HIS deliverance.
If you think fallen man can do it on his own, you are falling right into the trap of Satan, the mark of the beast, and the False Prophet. So be very careful not to get too caught up in anything in this world, because it is all going to pass away.
How will Miers be the "wrong way to do this" if she proves to be a strong conservative Justice? What will be served by putting up a controversial polarizing conservative if the nomination falls through because of a weak Republican majority in the Senate? What will have been served then? That would embolden the democrats and NO conservative would get out of committe. That's a fact.
I'm very relieved to see your opinion about Miers; it gives me great comfort to read your views.
Thanks.
"The man said he would only put in conservative strict constructionist people to be Judges on all levels, that would uphold the Constitution and what it REALLY SAYS, and not allow the court to be used as an auxillury legislative branch for out of power liberals"
ttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttt
Amen!
Since you are clearly hung-up on the phrase "in the mold of Scalia & Thomas" why don't you define what that means for us?
My objection isn't with her person, qualifications or predicted performance. Gerge Bush's nomination is milqtoast because the nominee is "stealth."
I just don't get all the venomous oppositon from conservatives towards her, and I say that as a life long conservative Christian Republican who's been a delegate at the State convention.
Not all of the venemous oppoisition is against her as a person, etc. It is an objection to the political tactic of "stealth."
What this loud and blatant opposition to her does do is do what the democrats haven't been able to do and are so gleeful about. Split the conservative movement in this country.
The opposition is less about here than it is about what seems to be a gutless pick by the President. She might be great, but her nomination isn't.
I understand the reaction that amounts to blaming the disappointed person for being disappointed. Call 'em unappeasable, Donner Party Republicans, whatever. But the reality is, the party has the burden of attracting voters. It is the party leader's fault when the party has a split. The differences of opinion "just are," and need to be efectively countered.
The prople who are disappointed with the nomination have pretty clearly articulated thatthe don't like the gang of 14 deal, etc., yet the party is not even mentioning that battle. Grrrrrr.
You can oppose her speficically and wish it had been someone else without withdrawing support from the President and the conservative majority ...
This nomination is a risky way to advance conservatism. It is "stealth conservatism." If it gets much more stealthy, it'll be off the political scene entirely.
I completely agree. GWB is not a true conservative.. Still, I got a tax cut and the little National Security thing. He's still better than Gore or Kerry.. that was my choice.
the Harriet Miers thing.. you all make very good points. I'm very interested to see how this all turns out. Unfortunately it will take 1 to 5 years to really know if you all are right or wrong about her.
I'm very relieved to see your opinion about Miers; it gives me great comfort to read your views.
ttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttt
Coming from you it's a compliment.
BTW-------I love this line of yours:
"You do understand that the Perpetually Pi$$ed Off sat home in 2000 and 2004, don't you?"
So when you can't disprove what someone says with fact, insult them. Nice. I so apologize, I did't realize you had to be on this site for a period of time before you could post what you think. Or, perhaps, is it that you think I'm "boring" people because you happen to disagree and have a burr up your butt about Miers? Would my post be "boring" to you if it was slamming Miers and calling Bush a traitor. I doubt it. Don't be a jerk. Most people who posted don't think it was "boring". Or are you a Clique Freeper who is the God of all things "cool and in" on FR? Sorry. I didn't give a fuzzy rip about cliques when I was in school, and I sure as heck don't give a fuzzy rip about them now. If you can't be civil and an adult, piss off. If you want to just pick a fight, email me smart mouth comments like that instead trying to appear as some kind of insider snob in public. You have no more right to be here than anyone else, and you certainly have no more right to post here than I do. Just because you've been posting here longer than I, certainly doesn't make you more of a conservative.
So, let's see...because Bush, the Nixon Republican, couldn't count on the liberal wing of the senate to go to battle with him on say, a Luttig, JRB, Edith Clement or Michael McConnell, jurists the Christian right hoped for, he had to settle for an unknown who is known for her Christianity and now, it is the secularists that are opposing her nomination that was made to make the Christian conservatives happy who aren't happy with her choice afterall? Yeah, you two guys got it all figured out.
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.