Posted on 10/04/2005 3:35:22 PM PDT by maximusaurelius
You should note I was talking to the poster. A slinger of withering insults. If you want to believe I was posting to half of the conservative movement, I can't stop you.
For them, I can't hope to change any minds but I can defend and not let the steamrollers roll over us (not meaning you or anyone personally).
Beyond that, we will get to see the record, such as there is, laid bare, and get to hear from Harriet Miers and the Senators who question her and form their opinions, and that has the best chance of changing minds, to my mind.
"You are merely a badmouther. Slinging insults. You KNOW little."
What little I know tells me you're an idiot if that's the best commentary you can proffer.
No, I'm not echoing Hruska. You're the one who's echoing Hruska, if you assume that not going to an Ivy League school makes Miers "mediocre." I don't see anything "mediocre" about somebody who becomes managing partner of one of Texas' largest law firms, and who has represented in court some of the country's biggest companies, including Disney. That ain't "mediocre," bub. Saying that it is -- because she didn't go to an Ivy League law school -- IS snobbery, however. The problem with snobbery is that it can blind its practitioners to reality.
I liked her at first as well...
We never know what these folks will do on the court, and presidents have traditionally looked to advisors for feedback.
I don't think Bush trusted any of what he was getting and made the call on a woman he knew well.
Hell, look at Thomas!
He rarely asked a question or writes about cases unless he is personally interested in them. That dismays me...
That could bite us in the ass one day.....I dunno....not what I was expecting.
The court needs a serious jurist to replace what once was a swing voter that you never knew how to read.
This alone will skew the court to the right.
Rhenquist has been replaced with a like mind, and there should be one more, and some say maybe two.
I think the court will look much different.
How are the people on that list selected?
We got lucky. Why not pick a known quantity when so much is at stake?
The ones I've seen here tend to be push polls.
Why would it have been useless?
They would not have been sustained.
You feel that a GOP controlled congress would have overriden a bill vetoed by a GOP president?
I might add, if one or two had a chance to be sustained, he would have lost all his momentum. I don't think the House leadership would allow that to happen.
Now that he's a lame duck and his SS momentume is shot to hell, he can veto without too much consequences, but they have accomplished a great deal. The time for fat trimming is now.
LOL! Comeon Jeff! Those were GOP bills! The farm bill, the energy bill!
All of them with GOP votes.
Yeah, I certainly agree with you on that. Good point.
I feel that if Bush had vetoed a spending bill for fiscal reponsibility reasons and made the reasons clear, the GOP house would have never overriden the veto.
Domestically, though Bush seems like he always does anything he can to avoid a fight.
I'm aware of that but the president is the leader of the party. If he vetoed the bill and made it clear that it was fiscal responsibility reasons, GOP house members would have a hard to voting to override.
The more that I think about it, "mediocre" isn't the best word to discribe Miers. However, she seems to strike me as more of an expert of corporate law than constitutional law. A guy like Roberts appeared to have exceptional knowledge of the Constitution. Maybe my opinion will be changed during the hearings, but I justing seen the same from Miers.
read: I just didn't see the same from Miers
You presume not only to eliminate her friendship, but also her position. She is a lawyer who worked for 10 years as council to the president, who presided over a bevy of well-considered court nominees. In addition to the part about leading a law firm, president of the state ABA, and her other qualifications.
I don't expect to convince you though, as I have grown weary of this entire task. I've got enough things to worry about without trying to convince my own side to keep an open mind.
And I don't mean to be dismissive. Mark Levin makes a compelling argument, as well as others, that there are people of character who have served honorably who are, in effect being passed over. But frankly, any nominee is going to leave all the other good nominees passed over. And while I suppose it would assuage their hurt feelings if they felt that the actual nominee was their equal, I just don't think that any reasonable judicial appointment is really going to be hurt that they were one of the two people in the entire country considered for a position on a bench that has only 9 open slots.
Many of these fine jurists are already in an elite group of a couple of hundred people, smaller than the roster of most professional sports leagues. While I can imagine judges dream of being on the supreme court, I can't imagine they expect it, or think they are entitled to it, or are discouraged to be passed over for that elusive slot or two.
Miers isn't my pick. I wanted someone more known, and younger. But her pick doesn't anger me yet, because I have not seen reason to be angered. And I certainly don't see reason to try to pull the rug out from under her yet either.
And I cannot fathom good conservatives surrendering to Reid, Pelosi, Howard Dean, and what passes for the democrat party. Even if we think our leaders are.
But as I said, I grow weary of the fight, and don't know if I will continue. It seems so pointless now.
Things were different when the house was controlled by the other party.
When it is owned and operated by the GOP and they can pass a bill with no democrat support, they have the power. The veto only serves to alienate the president and the Rats would have a ball with that.
I was hopin he would veto the energy bill, but they had made so many deals it was impossible to back out. They did so in order to get more support, and it would have hurt more than helped.
I just hope they don't go on another spending spree. If they do, Bush may have to go against the leadership. With delay on his way out, we will see if that changes the dynamics.
If they hit the checkbook on this Katrina stuff like they did on 9/11, I'm gonna have to start whacking some pubbies from office. If that happens we could lose what we gained.
But it is obvious to me that Republicans cannot be trusted with the checkbook either, and maybe a split government is best for the budget.
Just my thoughts tonight....
Of course I would, but Web Hubbell was clearly unqualified, and also a crook. And Clinton was a democrat while I'm a conservative.
I will still probably give up the arguing, but I don't believe there is any reason to compare a fine person like Harriett Miers to the sleezeball Web Hubbell.
Actually, that thought scares me. It is just that kind of "you can't understand the constitution unless you study it for years and practice practice practice" that I think leads to otherwise good jurists finding prenumbras and eminations. I know that people I trust make this argument, but they are mostly lawyers, and I think there is something that happens to people who take YEARS of their life studying something that makes them very "snobbish" about the ability of "commoners" to have a clue.
The 1st justices of the Supreme Court had almost no time to study the constitution and understand it. OK, that's a bad example.
I've read the constitution. I know I've been called arrogant, but it just doesn't look all that complicated. It's not written in legalese, it seems rather plain and simple.
Maybe our problem is that too many supreme court picks are looking to make the constitution much more complicated than it is.
I don't discount the difficulties you would have tying together centuries of precedent when deciding a case. I wouldn't want 3-4 lawyers on the bench who didn't have that background. But I think it will be refreshing to have at least one smart, well-trained lawyer on the bench who is NOT already conditioned by years of learning from others what she is SUPPOSED to think about the constitution.
I'm also thinking that that Roberts guy seems perfectly suited to helping her with the finer points of constitutional jurispudence, if she needs the help. And I'm betting the two of them hit it off marvelously in the vetting process -- I wouldn't be surprised if Bush asked Roberts about this and got a positive response.
If Harriet Miers is the person Bush and other supporters SAY she is, I am looking forward to the team of Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, and Myers to be a force for good for the next two decades. I even hold hope that Kennedy can be brought back into the fold. And maybe Stevens will grow weary and leave.
Did you ever think that Bush talked to Bush Sr. about Souter? About how his dad could make such a mistake? And Bush Sr would have said something like "Well son, no matter what people look like, no matter what they wrote, no matter who vouches for them, the power of the court is intoxicating. Make sure you find someone who is immune to that lure".
If Bush is positive that Miers cannot be lured to the dark side, would that not be the FIRST and most important "qualification" for the job?
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.