Posted on 10/13/2005 6:06:49 AM PDT by OESY
Pulling out the old DU bat when someone disagrees, I applaud your originality.
Very substantive
No, I associate the tactic being used with the tactics of the liberals.
I personally have not seen attacks on Miers because of her sex, except ones in the "cleaning lady" vein. I think that this pick was unfortunately made as a quota pick by the White House even though he didn't nominate a woman to replace O'Connor to begin with. I think he felt that by nominating a woman that would clear one avenue of attack.
I think that the President has made his pick, and that the hearings will establish her as either qualified or unqualified. That is their purpose. Once she has been heard from, then the Senate will get a chance to decide.
If she is as unqualified as many of the Miers attack squad allege then I doubt she will escape the Judiciary Cmte. I look forward to seeing her get a chance to answer questions and react to the Senate. I have no idea how she will perform. I just don't want to see her thrown under the train without a chance to prove herself.
The anti forces are demanding that she be thrown under the train, or throw herself under the train. She is loyal enough that she just might do it. I still think it is possible that she will withdraw, I'm agnostic re: whether that would help or further damage Bush at this point where so much damage has already been done.
Good post, I agree with your points.
Thank you. You are fair, at least, and that puts you well ahead of others who insist on total agreement with their point of view.
But what bothers me most is she's a big firm lawyer and Bar Association politician. I know the type. They are go along to get along folks who enjoy the attention and honors they give each other. Most are Dems, but there are some liberal pubbies. Very few of them are conservatives. I doubt she would do a Souter, but what shred of evidence do we have in the public record that she wouldn't do an O'Connor/Kennedy???
I use it only when it works.
I agree with you. He's basing his opinion on personal knowledge over a long period of time.
At least it's a new reason. Let's give it a try.
I don't buy into this concept of "best qualified", I see it as more like "qualified" and "not qualified". I think Miers is very likely qualified and will prove this in the confirmation hearings.
She's a stealth candidate - a sign of weakness that the Dem filibuster now rules the appointments landscape.
If is the RINOS we need to worry about, not the Dems. If the RINOS believe that the filibuster is being used to block a solid candidate, they will execute the nuclear option. The thing clouding the appointments landscape is Snowe, Collins, Chafee, Specter, Voinivich, and McCain and how they will react. The other thing hurting the landscape is that the partisanship and viciousness of the attacks have likely turned off many from wanting to run the gauntlet.
I mean, really, are John Kerry and George W. Bush the most capable two men in the entire United States to be President? Are they the "best qualified"? I would suggest NO, but they are the ones that maneuvered the political minefield and got to the finish line.
There are likely millions of Americans that would be a good Supreme Court judge. There are at least four on the court now that are not deserving of the post.
I think you need to pick up your Bushbot flag and let the process play out. That's what we elected him for, and he knows a lot more than we do about the political landscape in front of him.
>>These critics aren't just refusing to dance with the one that brought them, they are denouncing the idea of even having traveled to the ball in his car.<<
Skuze me, he didn't bring us. It's the other way around, my friend.
You whiffed, better get a new bat.
I love when people attempt to discredit an argument by attributing it to a "vocal minority". From now on, I'm going to refer to all those in favor of Miers as the "vocal minority", too.
Latest polls show 25% against, 25% for and 50% want to see more information (eg hearings).
I consider the 25% opposing the Constitutional process of nomination, followed by Senate hearings, and a vote who are vocally calling for an immediate withdrawal based on their feelings being hurt a "vocal minority". Also remember that this 25% includes the liberals who oppose her because she is a Republican conservative and a Christian.
The DRUDGE REPORT can now reveal that not only did Harriet Miers testify that she would not join the “politically charged” Federalist Society -- she testified that she had joined a liberal organization – the Democratic Progressive Voters League.
Miers was also asked whether she considered “the NAACP [to be] in the category of organizations” that she considered to be “politically charged.”
Her answer: “No, I don’t.”
Miers considers the Federalist Society to be "politically charged," but won't make the same accusation against the NAACP?
What conservative in their right mind would support this woman?
We'll know a lot before then. We'll have her Senate confirmation hearing testimony to review, and we'll have all the legitimate research into her thinking. I do not believe that there is anything wrong with examining her record with a fine-toothed comb to acertain her qualifications, legal mind, and Constitutional philosophy. These are all open for discussion, in the process of Senate advise and consent.
It is the extra-Constitutional demands for withdrawal by the supposed Constitutional purists that I find so offensive.
I wish my fellow conservatives would knock off the withdrawal talk, it helps no one but the Dems. Suppose Miers did withdraw and Bush nominated Luttig? The Dems would immediately attack Luttig for being an "extremist" and Bush for "pandering" to the "extreme right." A filibuster would be a certainty with the MSM is full bloviation mode. Then the Senate RINO's would begin going even squishier. No, Bush needs to stick by his guns.
Luttig, McConnell or the like would be more confirmable if Bush gets a third pick, a real possibility with Stevens' age and Ginsburg's health.
Bush gives his word that he would appoint a strict constructionist and claims Miers is a strict constructionist - whatever he thinks that means. We also know that he considers himself a strict constructionist, yet has taken actions during his presidency inconsistent with that philosophy. How do you know that your definition of constructionist is the same as Bush's? If his definition would allow CFR, unlimited commerce clause power, and the AWB to be upheld, his word that Miers is a strict constructionist means nothing.
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.