Posted on 10/10/2005 2:59:18 PM PDT by quidnunc
I suspect that President Bush was shocked to find such an uprising against his choice for a Supreme Court nominee. Why? Because it is coming not from the Liberal Left, but rather from his own base. Even George Will ran an opposition piece against Harriet Miers.
Conservatives have complained, in the past, about the elitists in the Democrat party as being the most liberal group and seemingly in a consistent state of launching snob attacks at everything this “cowboy” (as they call him) does.
I think that the Conservative-Republican cause also has its own share of these elitists, those who look down their noses at anyone who does not graduate from Harvard or Yale or even Stanford. …
-snip-
My personal views:
1. President Bush has "lived” with this woman for many years and knows her heart and soul. She helped him find Judge Roberts and the others potential candidates, so she knows what is needed to save this country and he knows this! No other president has ever been associated for so long or worked so closely with a Supreme Court nominee, so the fact that other presidents have been fooled by past selections does not mean that this can happen to this president!.
2. It is bad enough having the Democrats and fellow Leftists against us; we don't need Republicans, too.
3. It is not as if Bush carried a mandate when elected. There are still letters to the editor claiming that either Gore or Kerry really won the presidency, the latter by a bad vote count in Ohio. The media is trying daily to smear the President or his administration.
4. We don't need a long drawn-out battle in Congress right now with a possible filibuster, especially with all the problems raised by the Democrats and the biased media re Iraq, Katrina, the budget deficit, et al.
5. The President may have to appoint two more Supreme Court judges before his term expires, so there is still an opportunity to put up controversial conservatives for the Supreme Court and have the time to wage war against the Socialists in Congress.
6. We lost one election to William Jefferson Clinton because too many Republicans were mad at Bush Sr. including me, and so we voted for Perot. As a result, we had Clinton for 8 years. Let's not make that error again. Do you really want eight years of Hillary and her court nominees?
7. Did the Democrats condemn Clinton when he was impeached? No! They blamed everything on those “mean nasty Republicans” who thought that having sex with a young intern in the Oval Office during business was bad. Some Republicans joined the Democrats. Do the Republicans constantly back President Bush? No! If he is not 100% perfect, we want to punish him. Even 90% perfect is not good enough.
8. No baseball team could win a game if the team was run by what the fans in the park demanded instead of what the coach saw as a winner. Nor, could employees successfully run a corporation if the CEO had to follow their rules rather than what he (or she) knew best. We elected a boss. Back him. The next time, we had better get a stronger mandate (more voters) if we are to obtain an even stronger hold over Congress in 06 and 08!
-snip-
Is this a joke? None of these are coherent reasons..
Because, in addition to other reasons, George H.W. Bush appointed David Souter... Why didn't George W. Bush learn this? Conservatives care most about the Supreme Court, because it is an institution that affects the entire country for decades at a time. If anything else, he should not have appointed an unknown for this position.
Yes. In fact we can DEMAND more. We're owed.
If she's confirmed, Harriet Miers could turn out to be the High Court's first justice in a long time to pack heat.
She sounds like a committed defender of the right to keep and bear arms.
More of the same: Except this candidate because Republicans are too scared of a fight and let's just hope for the best.
How would you know, from what I have seen coherence isn't your long suit?
But is she intellectually strong enough to resist the leftist pull of the media/Beltway cocktail set? Anthony Kennedy wasn't.
You sound like a Democrat-voting welfare recipient.
"How would you know, from what I have seen coherence isn't your long suit?"
Babyish, desperate ad-hominem attacks aside... none of these are actual arguments. It reads more like a Letterman top 10 list of jokes. It's not a serious defense of Miers, in fact I don't think I've seen one of those yet. Hmm....
I hope Laura Bush doesn't find out....
Bush knows her. You forget this.
I see the author calls Miers a "constitutionalist" in the title, but offers not once piece of evidence in the entire article to back up this description of her.
In nominating Miers, Bush bypassed a rather large stable of judicial candidates with a strong history of documented conservative philosophy. For what? What is the positive case for Miers?
Many well meaning presidents have offered up "trust me" candidates, who have proven to be disasters. Conservative disgust and mistrust of this nomination is very well founded.
I see a lot of "blaming the victim" directed at conservatives who rightly expected a candidate with a documented history of conservative judicial philosophy.
"But is she intellectually strong enough to resist the leftist pull of the media/Beltway cocktail set? Anthony Kennedy wasn't."
This is all a big myth. The SC judges that turned liberal were never conservative in the first place. They were "trust us" they are conservative picks. Conservative judges don't drift to being liberal and liberal judges don't drift to being conservative.
You're not owed jack, jack. If you don't trust Bush after the nominations he has made to the Federal Bench (not a SINGLE LIBERAL in the bunch!), then you have a perpetual wedgie, and you're beyond help.
As for question 7, it sure is interesting how the pro-Miers camp is using those tactics against those that dare so much as question whether Miers is what President Bush says she is; or against those that question why we have to have a contradicotry blank slate right after Roberts, who was originally picked to replace O'Connor and had enough Senate support for that before Rehnquist passed away, ultimately divided the DemonRATs (not the Pubbies) down the middle as Rehnquist's replacement.
Not to the incoherent...
Would you please point me to a reliable source where I can find this? The only thing I've seen is a report than a brother or friend or somesuch gave her a handgun, but I haven't seen a report confirming that she ever carried.
I knows she's said some pro-2nd-Amendment stuff, but I'm not sure of this other claim.
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.