Skip to comments.
The Miers revolution [Offending your supporters has real-world consequences]
National Post ^
| Oct. 11, 2005
| David Frum
Posted on 10/11/2005 5:30:20 AM PDT by conservativecorner
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120, 121-140, 141-160 ... 241-252 next last
To: Wonder Warthog
Yeah, but with the Miers nomination, we go neither hamburger nor filet mignon---more like tofu burgers---an unacceptable imitation of beef Even though I do have a bad habit of judging food before I taste it, I don't like to judge people before they have a chance to speak for themselves.
Bring on the hearings!!!
121
posted on
10/11/2005 7:08:04 AM PDT
by
syriacus
(Harriet Miers deserves hearings and an up/down vote, not rocks thrown by "Harriet's Harriers")
To: Blood of Tyrants
i agree with you 100%. bush is probably also going to give the rats the house and senate. i for one am very teed off at this guy.
122
posted on
10/11/2005 7:10:50 AM PDT
by
tdened
To: RGSpincich
are missing a great presidency.LOL!...Thanks...This thread needed a shot of humor to lighten it up a little.
123
posted on
10/11/2005 7:11:36 AM PDT
by
KDD
(A wink is as good as a nod to a blind horse.)
To: syriacus
Syriacus,
Do you really expect to get a good understanding of this nominee from the hearings?
They spend weeks prepping to ensure that they come off in a positive light while saying nothing on their positions on the major issues (as they should). I don't see how these hearings can determine whether an individual is a strict constructionist or not.
To: Rutles4Ever
Hugh Hewitt was spinning like a top last night, saying that Miers has impeccable credentials as a lawyer (huh? Lottery commission?) and that being an originalist is "easy" - that reading the constitution and interpreting it is not a big deal.Hmmm, you left out the part where he wasn't alone and was talking to a professor, too, who gave a valid and persuasive argument that she is qualified.
To: rbmillerjr
LOL, your forgetting about the undecideds smart guy.. Like I said if you can't count, give it up. The undecided could not be considered against Miers. So, using 10% as undecided and the 58% approval, it would be safe to say that nearly 70% of conservatives are unopposed to Miers' nomination.
To: Don'tMessWithTexas
Your ad hominem attack is ridiculous and only reveals the emptiness of your point of view. But it's not only absurd, it's pathetic. LOL! The thing that was pathetic was your reply #57.
127
posted on
10/11/2005 7:13:55 AM PDT
by
Dane
( anyone who believes hillary would do something to stop illegal immigration is believing gibberish)
To: conservativecorner
This article presupposes that this administration, right now, on Oct. 11, 2005, has the political will and political capital to do what it would take to push someone like Janice Brown ... who I'd like to see get this SCOTUS seat, BTW ... through the Senate. I don't think it does.
I've said this in every thread I've participated in on this topic, and I'll repeat it: We missed the chance to invoke the constitutional option, and I would be utterly surprised to see another chance come around without massive change in the Senate. Because while there are 55 Republicans in the Senate, there are not 55 movement conservatives, especially movement social conservatives. So for those spoiling for controntation and a fight with the libs over this, IMHO at this point in time, on Oct. 11, 2005, it's not likely to be a winnable fight. It would make us feel good and we could look in the mirror and say that we've stood on principle, but at the end of the day, again this is my .02, we lose because I do not see the constitutional option to break a Dem filibuster as an achievable option right now.
I am not thrilled with Miers, but I'm not ready to throw the president over the side (which is what a Senate rejection of this nominee would accomplish) or opt out of 2006 and 2008 in protest either ... to those who want to opt out of 2006, keep repeating this nine-word mantra, "Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi."
128
posted on
10/11/2005 7:13:57 AM PDT
by
GB
To: syriacus
I think you've missed the point. We know McVain and Schumer and their ilk are not are allies, but BUSH was OUR PRESIDENT! He was the one who was going to bring an end to the tyranny of the courts.
What happened? Roberts the jury is still out, very bright guy but nobody is really sure how conservative he will be. Miers, never took a position on a controversial issue and the RATS recommended her for the position.
129
posted on
10/11/2005 7:16:11 AM PDT
by
wmfights
(lead, follow, or get out of the way)
To: rbmillerjr; RGSpincich
It is a clearly dividing issue.
Instead of a principal debate (long overdue) between the Right and the Left about constitution and what is good for the country, we have an uninspiring candidate that divides conservatives.
What other issue divided conservatives so much lately?
It is an entirely self inflicted (by Bush) pain.
130
posted on
10/11/2005 7:17:36 AM PDT
by
Tolik
To: ClearCase_guy
George H.W. Bush did not know David Souter. Souter was recommended to him by others. He got burned. George W. Bush did not want to get burned. He did want a nominee who could get on the bench. He chose someone who he KNEW. Someone he TRUSTED. This is the president who put Janice Rogers Brown on the Federal bench. He didn't want to get burned by someone he didn't know. So he chose someone very reliable. Someone he truly knew. Why is this so hard to understand?
Why indeed! Never have so many been STUCK-ON-STUPID!
To: Mr Rogers
No one is suggesting the Senate should filibuster her. The suggestion is that the President should withdraw the nominee, or that she should be voted down.
They suggest that "she should be voted down" before a hearing?
My suggestion is that she should get a hearing first .
Supposedly principled people who insisted on "up or down votes" for nominees, merely 6 months ago, have reversed course.
Perhaps these renegers are too near-sighted. They only defend nominees who are in danger of filibuster....when they can pick a good "consitutional" fight. Harriet doesn't fit their scenario.
I think that is the main problem. Folks were primed for a good fight against the libs. When that evaporated they turned their energy against Bush.
What do leaderless soldiers do, historically, when they are all dressed up for battle and the battle doesn't take place? They pillage.
132
posted on
10/11/2005 7:20:08 AM PDT
by
syriacus
(Harriet Miers deserves hearings and an up/down vote, not rocks thrown by "Harriet's Harriers")
To: conservativecorner
We've had enough justices appointed with long judicial histories who's job had been to rule based on the law as had been decided by higher courts. When placed on the high court, their actions there were significantly different that what was expected by those appointing them.
Appointing someone who is not competent for the job because of friendship is a very bad thing.
Appointing someone who you know well and feel would do a good job and uphold the constitution is a good idea.
There are some people I would have liked to see appointed, and Miers was not among them, but I've yet to see a good reason why she shouldn't be confirmed.
I would have rather that he appointed a tough conservative constitutionalist to the court, and aggressively fought the senate to get them confirmed.
Unfortunately our president doesn't appear to have the backbone to butt heads with the Senate and has taken the easy way out by choosing a candidate without a record on many contentious issues.
That doesn't mean that she isn't a qualified, conservative, constitutionalist. It means we end up having to trust that Bush has chosen well, which is something we are uncomfortable with for a variety of valid reasons.
However, in the end, it's the president that gets to pick the nominee, and he's chosen a person who is well versed in the law. She is as qualified as many who have served on the court in the past.
To: Tolik
Thanks, still sitting at 70% unopposed.
To: syriacus
"Republicans have a perfectly constitutional, perfectly reasonable case for demanding an up-or-down vote on judicial nominees, " And yet they don't overtly object to colture abuse. No outrage that capitulating to the gang of 14 effectively limits the President's power to nominate overtly conservative candidates.
While having the perfectly reasonalbe case, the GOP has asserted silence, acquiescence, and capitulation. The President hasn't done anything productive with this perfectly reasonable case.
Wussies.
135
posted on
10/11/2005 7:24:13 AM PDT
by
Cboldt
To: conservativecorner
'It's not a rebellion, sire: It's a revolution..... an uprising within the President's own party. Neither a revolution, nor an uprising.
Pillaging and vandalizing by soldiers when the long-awaited battle is called off.
136
posted on
10/11/2005 7:25:09 AM PDT
by
syriacus
(Harriet Miers deserves hearings and an up/down vote, not rocks thrown by "Harriet's Harriers")
To: cyncooper
So we've got James Dobson, Harry Reid, Pat Robertson, Hugh Hewitt, and some professor in support of this nomination. Three shills a Demoncrat and a no-name.
137
posted on
10/11/2005 7:26:03 AM PDT
by
Rutles4Ever
(Stuck on Genius)
To: BluH2o
Maybe if I spell reeeaaaallll slooowwww ...What would happen if you spelled slowly?
138
posted on
10/11/2005 7:26:33 AM PDT
by
syriacus
(Harriet Miers deserves hearings and an up/down vote, not rocks thrown by "Harriet's Harriers")
To: Don'tMessWithTexas
They will no doubt say: do you want Hillary or a Dem Senate? Those please will start to ring hollow. They are too vainglorius to plea for help. They will insult you into submission.
139
posted on
10/11/2005 7:27:14 AM PDT
by
Cboldt
To: syriacus
I think that is the main problem. Folks were primed for a good fight against the libs. When that evaporated they turned their energy against Bush.
You nailed it. That's most of what's going on here. As far as what folks like Coulter are saying, IMHO she's representing the mindset of a lot of Ivy League legal eagles who've worked hard and invested a lot of time and effort in trying to position themselves to get on the SCOTUS, and probably see it as their birthright ... folks can flame away, but there is a touch of elitism involved ... and then the president has the audacity to pick someone who went to ... GASP! ... Southern Methodist.
140
posted on
10/11/2005 7:29:25 AM PDT
by
GB
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120, 121-140, 141-160 ... 241-252 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson