Posted on 10/08/2005 9:52:18 AM PDT by Allen H
Excellent. That is correct. There are too many people in this against Miers who cannot see the forrest for the trees.
Or at the very least make it where ones making unconstitutional findings like suiter with that ridiculous immenant domain case he decided. THAT was nothing but unconstitutional. He should have been impeached for that.
So, because Democrats are listening I should shut up? I don't think so. Let them have their little giggle. It doesn't mean most of us are going to go out and vote for any of their filk.
Everyone knows you pick your battles. But you do pick your battles, if you believe in something.
What battle has W picked? One: Iraq. And for that he deserves huge commendation, even if he has been oddly inert it its defense.
Two should have been this nomination. It wasn't.
If you're really a conservative, why is it your comments are more insult than fact, like a liberal?
So? He signed the campaign finance reform bill. That indicates he wouldn't know a strict constructionist if it bit him in the ass. His appointments are made according to how they conform to his vision, not the Constitution's.
BTW, <p>, creates paragraph breaks.
Amen. I've been conservative politically and a Christian since I was about 9 and old enough to really comprehend both, and I consider Miers to be totally acceptable given her past and those who actually know her. The opposition to Miers does stink badly of "she's not "this" enough" or "she's not "that" enough". Disgusting, and it's all things that are WRONG with politics. People taking action on something without the hard facts to back it up, and in the face of existing facts that support what the person is opposing. That's irrational and illogical to the extreme.
That kind of hateful inflammatory venomous statement you just made pretty well indicates that you aren't a conservative at all. I mean, who are you to judge? You're no better or more special than Bush or anyone else. Get off your ivory tower and stop presuming to know whether Miers should be on the court, when you're no better than Bush as a person and he actually has known Miers for many years and you have not, menaing you have NO basis in fact to judge her either. Did you get tired of DU or something, so you came over here? NO real conservative would make that kind of insensitive statement about Bush having been a drinker in the past. You outed yourself as a jerk at the very least.
Thank you. I apprecaite it.
Crony? You sound like the mainstream media. So because she's loyal to Bush, she's just a crony with no mind of her own? Tell me, have you accomplished have as much professionally as she has, and would as many people come forward to defend her character as have defended hers? Because if you haven't accomplished as much as her, and if no where near as many people would put their reputations on the line to defend yours, and she's a crony, then what exactly does that make you???
My reasoning is not convoluted by any stretch. And I know you haven't really read all I said in all my posts because you haven't refuted a thing I've actually said. You just disagree but can't prove I'm wrong about anything, so you just make a sentence up taking most of what others say, watering it down, and taking it out of context, instead of making a point by point rebuttle. That's the hallmark of a weak debater. That is you.
ARe you kidding? Is it your opinion that clinton did not put up known liberals? ginsburg and breyer were WELL known activist liberals. And when Thomas was put up, he did not have the reputation he has now of a strong conservative. Your post really is not accurate.
Here, let me show you again:
Bush has not earned the right to say, "trust me." This is why the whole conservative movement is having this argument in the first place.
Evidence that Bush hasn't kept his word:
1) He didn't keep his word on embryonic stem cells and created a market in embryos, which is what the culture of death wants.
2) Bush signed McCain/Feingold. His conservative princpled stand rested on hoping the Supreme Court would do what he was afraid to do - kill it.
3) Bush has yet to oppose a dime in socialism.
4) Bush is proud of recruiting Kennedy to write his education bill.
5) Bush created a whole new entitlement - prescription drugs. It wasn't something he was pressured into, either. It's passed and signed but no one wants it.
Some argue that it is the president's choice to pick whomever he will nominate. Not true. He is there to represent the people who put him there and to uphold the constitution. Republicans never should've voted for Ginsberg based on her unconstitutional views, rather than voting for her in spite of her wacky leftist views.
Bush has created a disturbing precedent in choosing Roberts and Miers. He has sent the unmistakable message that known conservatives need not apply. Some will say, "...but look at his appellate appointments." Sure, he made excellent appellate appointments, but he left them to twist in the wind in his first term. I'm sure the stealthy nature of his SC nominations are not lost on his appellate appointments, either.
He's also damaged Christian conservatives with his behind the scenes re-assurances that, "...she's gonna vote the right way." In a way, confirming liberals fears that conservatives want a Christian activist judge. Thankfully, aside from Dobson selling out, Christian conservatives have not endorsed Miers.
Conservatives need to press Miers during the confirmation hearings instead of giving her a pass like they did Roberts.
YOu seem like another liberal troll from DU. So because I'm actually waiting for the facts to be seen after Miers is on the court, not whining like a baby over what may or may not happen, with no facts to substantiate it, that makes me a nazi stooge programmed by Bush. You are a lib. I have stated quite clearly above things I do not agree with bush on, border, budget, etc, and I also said I would have preferred Owens, Luddig, Pryor, etc, but that didn't happen. Just because I choose to be a grown up and wait to gripe after something has actually happened to gripe about, doesn't make me some nazi bush-bot as you so immaturely put it. Grow up if you're going to post to me. I can't stand people who have to use insults in place of facts of rational thought.
"So the idea is to head off Democrat opposition by going for the milquetoast first? I'm not sure I like that idea."
The idea here is that "whiners" is a debate stopper like "racist". When you're accused of being a "whiner" you're supposed to suspend rational thought and drink whatever Koolaide is being offered thereby being proven as being loyal to the PARTY.
And as of yet, there is NO, LESS THAN NO evidence that Miers will be anything less than a Thomas or Scalia on the bench. She said she was worried that Roberts wasn't conservative enough, well more conservative than Roberts is nothing less than Scalia and Thomas. The real spineless Republicans in the senate are the reason that an in your face Luddig type nominee was not the smart choice. And I strongly take offense to your suggestion that because I don't think an in your face fight in the Senate would be won, that makes me a "spineless Republican". I resent that and if you knew my politics of the last 18 years you wouldn't say that. I AM a conservative in the mold of Scalia and Thomas and there IS NO conservative more conservative than me when it comes to politics, and yet, I am comfortable with Miers, so it would be nice if you could be a little less insulting in your posts.
Hear! hear!
I agree. I hate seeing the fighting over this. If we are going to turn on Bush for something, it should be porous borders. I honestly believe this pick will turn out to be much ado about nothing. But some people just hate Bush on this forum and nothing will change that..
It's not just this. Bush has displayed to me, over the last few years (and I voted for him twice) that he is an elitist and a cronyist. This is merely more evidence.
Tell me, have you accomplished have as much professionally as she has, and would as many people come forward to defend her character as have defended hers? Because if you haven't accomplished as much as her, and if no where near as many people would put their reputations on the line to defend yours,
If I have not accomplished as much as her, and therefore I may not criticize her, then according to your liberalesque 'logic' you should shut up too.
Unless your accomplishments better hers.
then what exactly does that make you???
A critic of cronyism and elitism.
No evidence is no evidence. You may be comfortable with no evidence, but you cannot berate the rest of us who would like to see some evidence of something.
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.