Posted on 10/04/2005 5:35:29 AM PDT by shortstop
George Bush isn't bringing down the conservatives, they are doing it themselves.
Reagan didn't know O'Connor. People convinced him that she'd be okay. SHE HASN'T BEEN!
President Bush chose Roberts, got a whole lot of flack for doing so, by many FEEPERS and quite a few supposed Conservative talking heads/pundits. They knew NOTHING whatsoever about Roberts, but that didn't matter to them at all !
Unlike O'Connor and Souter, Miers is extremely well known and trusted by President Bush.
We are a REPRESENTATIVE REPUBLIC. That means that we vote for people to REPRESENT US AND MAKE THE DECIDIONS FPR US. Most of us here worked ourselves to a frazzle to get this president re-elected. We obviously trusted him to do what we want done...mostly. No politician is going to do EVERYTHING all of us claim we want, when not all of us agree on that 100% of the time. But this President Bush is well aware of his father's failings, while in office and is determined to NEVER repeat them.
Many FREEPERS, as adults, voted for Clinton. Does that mean that they never really saw the light and are not now real Conservatives?
And you know this because?
You have no way of knowing how she will rule, neither do I, but I see no reason to assume that she will not follow the Constitution. If you have evidence that she will do other than follow a strict interpretation of the Constitution, link it, and I will look at it.
Barring that, realize that a long, bitter, drawn out, fight in the Senate will likely make it more difficult for Bush to implement other parts of his agenda.
I do not know why Bush made this particular nomination; I do think he wants a legacy vis-à-vis SCOTUS – and I believe him when he says he want some one who will follow the original intent of the Constitution. Time will tell.
BTW, I find bold much effect than ALL CAPS in ensuring that simpletons like me don’t have to strain my brain reading the important parts. ;)
As a lurker and member, I've been here eight years! During that time, I have read quite a number of posts where the person asked for forgiveness, for having voted for Clinton. You don't agree with facts? Now just WHY is that so, when it is patently obvious that you don't even know the facts? Do you think I made it all up? I DON'T DO THAT!
This isn't about your "opinion"; it's about FACTS!
O'Connor was nominated because she is a woman. Reagan didn't know her.
Souter was foisted on President Bush the elder, who knew him even less well than Reagan knew O'Connor. If anything, on paper, Souter was the more Conservative.
This isn't brain surgery, it's just facts and from the facts, one is supposed to make a logical progression of thought. You appear to be incapable of doing that.
Hmmmmmmmm...let's see, Texas was NOT exactly the bastion of Conservatism, when she sent money to the Gore campaign. Gore was pro-life and pro-Second Amendment at that time, running against Dukakis, who was a Masshole LIBERAL, who was anti-death penalty, anti-gun, and pro-abortion. You think that she should have left her firm, because they supported Gore?
Okay, here's a question for you. All teachers' unions ( and there are several of them ) are lefties. Not all teachers are Liberals. Do you want every single Conservative/Republican teacher to quite his/her job ? And if they did, then what would they do?
Now don't lie.......do you ever go see a movie or rent a DVD, in which the actors, actresses, directors, writers are damned Dems? What about T.V. shows and/or music?
When you find a "fact", I'll listen. Until then Meirs is a relativist.
I gave you facts, you don't like them. TOUGH!
Yes, I remember being surprised at the Cheney pick, especially since Wyoming only had 3 electoral votes and the West was already solid, but look at how well that turned out.
good analogy.
Our side has waited for this moment for decades and everyone in the party knows it. This has to be a very well-considered move no matter how it seems to those of us on the relative outside of the decision. Everyone just keep calm. Just wait until she gets on the court and hears a few cases. This time next year some of the people freaking out today will be embarrassed that they ever doubted.
Get a grip, man. You're the one who asked the idiotic question, "would Reagan nominate Miers"! I merely pointed out that Reagan nominated O'Connor, which you conveniently forget has been anything but a solid conservative. And that leads me to the point I keep making. Bush promised to nominate strict constuctionists on the courts.
Bush isn't a liar, but a man of faith and is more than aware of how important this nomination is. He has continued to explain that he KNOWS Harriet Miers very well and KNOWS that she will not change (like David Souter did).
Its not as if Bush has rolled the dice, wondering if Miers will stick to upholding the Constitution and not legislate from the bench. He is positively convinced that she is the perfect nominee and he can trust her. I seriously doubt there have been many instances where a President has known his SC nominee as well as Bush knows Miers.
I voted for Clinton in 1992. I was eighteen. We're talking about a professional and an adult giving money to the DNC and to Gore. I can't trust judgment like that.
I see you haven't bothered to do your homework on Miers. Her donations have already been explained as the typical routine donations heads of law firms give. It may repluse you to know that the majority of law firms donate to political parties, especially if they want access. Its the way the world works and doesn't reflect one iota that Harriet Miers did anything sinister or is a personal supporter of liberals. And finally, it's being used to inflame the red meat conservative crowd who want to think the worst about Harriet Miers. I don't and you shouldn't either.
Logic 101, remember, the course we all had to take way back when?
President Bush trusts Laura I assume, and Laura is pro choice. What are the odds that Miers, reportedly a friend of Laura's, is pro choice?
Sounds like a toss up to me, and very chancy. I'm with Schumer on this. We should all know where she stands. Schumer may know, and seems to be laying low. Just how gullible are you?
God knows, we really want someone who's in good with the 'legal community'.
I hear Souter is in great with the 'legal community'.
Well said. I'm not looking for any red meat like the whacko anti Bush crazies, but the egg that will soon be on their faces sounds delicious.
Logic 101 is not something you are all that familiar with and that example was pathetic.
Since you decided to align yourself with Shmucky Chuckie, that says a lot about about you, ducky. You could have picked a Conservative, but went straight for Chickie. So let's use logic 101 on you! :-)
Chuckie baby is a slimeball Liberal.
To quote you : "I'm with Schumer on this."
Therefore, you are also a slimeball Liberal.
We'll all know where she stands, or not, in due time. But tarring her with a borad broad brush, when we don't know, is pathetic and silly!
We should know now, and I'm not tarring, just asking the question.
Chuckie baby is a slimeball Liberal.
You have Schumer pegged, but I think knowing where a candidate stands, as Schumer wants ( I know, probably only when dealing with republican appointees) is essential.
The more we get into this, in reflection, I think Bush Sr knew exactly what Souter was, and maybe that W does too. She could be another plum to the Democrats. What is your definition of 'due' time? During the confirmation hearings or when the SC next hands down it's decisions?
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.