Posted on 10/04/2005 3:35:22 PM PDT by maximusaurelius
3) unless Miers demonstrates in her hearing that she has "hitherto undisclosed interests and talents pertinent to the court's role," the Senate has a duty to reject the nomination to prevent this or any other president "from reducing the Supreme Court to a private plaything useful for fulfilling whims on behalf of friends"; 4) the Miers nomination vindicates the principle of tokenism under the rubric of diversity; writes Will, "for this we need a conservative president?"
(Excerpt) Read more at citizenjournal.com ...
LOL. I haven't even made up my mind yet. But after the hearings if I support her nomination, I'll look for you and maybe we can get a wager down.
Interesting. It had long been the complaint that FR had purged all the "fringers". The "Day in the life" crowd was getting people banned who disagreed with them constantly.
Perhaps the "fringers" have taken control. More likely, inmy opinion, Bush has been a massive disappointment, and the majority of the grassroots have turned against him.
Hey Huck, you can trust or not trust, you can certainly verify all you want. I've yet to make up my mind and won't until I see her in the hearings but Bushs track record on judicial nominees in the appellate courts is excellent so from me he gets the benefit of the doubt and Harriet Miers gets my defense from those who use invective, personal attacks and bs.
I'm really looking forward to the hearings. I think they will be able to vet her actual ability to do the job, which is going to have to be good enough. Because the GOP has adopted an anti-republican (small r) stance on judicial appointments, we don't get to find out much that is truly substantive.
You don't see any difference between a politician who needs your vote and one who doesn't?
Somehow I doubt that the majority here 'hate Bush' or no longer support him, despite his occassional (sometimes major) mistakes.
Perhaps this would make a good FR poll subject? Evidence is always better than speculation, and helps to bring perspectives back toward reality.
I felt that there would be little reason to believe she would not become another swing voter and make decisions based on her beliefs.
Most conservatives saw her as a bomb to throw at the democrats, but I saw a problem.
I did not like Bork either. Although Bork was better than she was, he was personally wrapped up in issues as well.
Most don't know that he was anti-2nd ammendment for example.
When the personalopinions outweigh the knowledge of the law and the purpose of the court, I don't want them on the SCOTUS bench, but they may be just fine in the appeals area.
Source is White House fact sheet. We then have it on the authority of the National Law Journal that Miers is indeed a powerful and influential attorney/lawyer. Thanks for getting the facts on the table. I would be interested to know who the others were.
I agree. And for the record, I don't hate Bush. I am a conservative. When he does conservative things, I like him. When he doesn't I don't. It's been a long time since he has done anything to suggest that he is a conservative, however.
"That's to say nothing of the fact that when his strongest nominees were being filibustered, he never went to bat for any of them, except towards the end when he finally made some weak pleas to let the full Senate vote on them."
That really bothered me too. He also seemed to buy into the gansta of 14 deal, knowing it meant some of his picks (and we know he's infallible on his picks) took it in the neck. That stunk to high heaven.
LOL!
"Harriet Miers: GWB's latest faith-based initiative"
The line of the night IMO. I honestly think he was caught off guard by the big conservative backlash which accounts for the hastily-arranged press conference to try and quell the uprising. But it didn't work IMO. Except for those who follow Bush with Blind faith, he's out there on his own on Harriet.
But he wears a cowboy hat and clears brush for the cameras!
Anything specific that you can recall?
This is of interest to me, because she's been my pick. This is the first I've heard from someone on the right who has a different view, so I'm intrigued to hear more.
"Perhaps this would make a good FR poll subject?"
You know, I had the same thought. There is a crying need on FR for just such a poll, but one well thought out so as not to lead to mushy results. I'd like to see how many think Miers is the most qualified candidate out there as Bush himself has said.
It's a great article. Best I've read by him in a long time. You should have heard F Lee Levin today on the radio. Equally scathing. And did you catch Ann Coulter on Hannity tonight?
A few veto's would have been nice for effect, but they would have been useless.
He will toss out some good red meat before he is done. He has to weigh everything he does in the interests of the country and of the party he leads.
I would not want the job, but he did, and he is doing it.
He is not the only Conservative that has not done what the right wants, and he won't be the last.
Frankly, he is not as conservative right as some want him to be on all issues. He never was. he believe government has a obligation to citizens. That does not set well with some, but that is what he is. I really don't understand the knee jerkin going on over this pick though.
It did not come from weakness, although some wanted a battle. It came from a desire and a promise to fix the court for a generation or more and that is what I trust he is doing. He will get it done!
"But he wears a cowboy hat and clears brush for the cameras!"
If I responded to that bait, I'd be accused of being a brush basher. I'm not going there.
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.