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 ...
I wasn't referring to you personally. I was referring to the political pundits that live and work entirely within the Washington D.C. Capitol Beltway. I have met some of them personally. It is absolutely stunning how isolated they are from the real world. And heaven help anyone who steps outside their expectations of what the political script should be. Bush has made a career of doing just that. It drives them (people like Bill Kristol and George Will) crazy. Worse yet, it makes them look bad on TV. Funny thing is, most of the political mess this country has to suffer through is generated by the people that exist within that Beltway. The solution to our problems aren't to promote more of those folks into positions of higher authority. The solution is to bring in an outsider with a real world perspective. And when that person is described by everyone who knows her as a strong Conservative, I'm pleased.
Then how is it that when the nomination was announced nobody knew who the hell she was?
Oh, ok. That makes sense, and when you put it that way, I agree.
If she is a strong conservative, and if I can find proof that she is anti-judicial activism, then I'd feel a lot more comfortable. But, as much as I like Bush, and trust him on many matters, on this I am not going to just blindly take his word for it. I basically want to see for myself that she is a good candidate, if you know what I mean.
Well, seriously, how many people know the nation's top 100 most powerful attorneys? How many people are intimately acquainted with the upper echelons of the legal world at all, really?
Still, it is a bit disconcerting...No cause for panic, but still.
George Bush has selected people like Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Condi Rice, Karl Rove, Karen Hughes, John Bolton, and John Roberts for positions of responsibility. I like his track record. So yes, I believe he is more "infallible" than other "well respected conservatives." People who recommended a person like Souter for the Supreme Court.
"Funny thing is, most of the political mess this country has to suffer through is generated by the people that exist within that Beltway."
The SCOTUS, the White House, and both houses of Congress are found inside the Beltway. Even Bush exists within the Beltway. I suppose we can blame the whole lot for the mess our country is in can't we?
And I think that is a completely logical and rational response. I'm sure it is exactly what George Bush would ask you to do. And that is a completely different response than so many people on this site who are currently lighting torches for a great march on the Whitehouse to lynch President Bush for betraying their "conservative values".
Well, I had heard of all the other nominees before. But, I don't mean how many FReepers have heard of her. Rather, the next morning most lawyers who were quoted didn't know anything about her either. So, the point is, if she were not W's friend, she never would have been considered for the spot. There are probably 10,000 other lawyers who have done just as little as Miers.
Nothing but vitriol and personal insults. If you expect to engage me in dialogue, you'll have to do better than this blatant flamebaiting.
I suggest you finish your temper tantrum and then try to engage me in an adult manner.
Just curious, so do you think that since Bush knows Miers really well that she is an originalist who will not legislate from the bench, or somebody who would have upheld the campaign finance reform law that the Court upheld?
Frankly, I don't believe our country is in a mess. I travel all around the world in both my civilian and military careers. Our country is by far the most outstanding nation in this world. But the political mess that exists in this country is driven largely by the professional politicians who spend most of their lives inside the beltway. That ain't George Bush.
While I may not be overjoyed with this nomination, I do not even want to hear about conservatism from George "a welfare state is not inconsistent with conservatism" Will.
George Will is ABC's idea of a conservative.
No question that there is some situational politics playing out.
Tremendous pressure to appoint a woman. Flimsy support in the Senate. But none of this will change. We can't turn the East coast red, and we cannot get past the female thingy either.
She has been talked about for a month now, but most conservatives, including myself, paid the talk little attention. Personally, I thought he might elevate Priscilla Owen, but I also felt she was needed badly where she was.
It is difficult to find a female justice who would not let womans issues trump her thinking and the Constitution. This was what was happening with the court and why Bush picked someone he knew personally.
He's a lot more savy then people usually give him credit for. But he can't come right out and say what he was thinking.
Lets see how she measures up in committee. I think most will be surprised and fears somewhat calmed..
Rokke said: "Funny thing is, most of the political mess this country has to suffer through is generated by the people that exist within that Beltway."
Now Rokke says: "Frankly, I don't believe our country is in a mess."
Er, which is it, and I'll give you a few minutes to come up with a final answer. And, oh, if there is no mess, then we can't blame it on those in-side the Beltway types can we?
Now that's just stupid. If she's only been on the list twice that means she dropped off it eight other times in the last ten years, which shows pretty affirmatively how marginal she is on the top echelon. Probably number 97 or 98 both times. Who knows how low the other times. And this is Bush's pick? Why not one of the people on the list thirteen times if this is supposed to be one of the bright spots on her curriculum vitae?
Who is nobody? The talking yaps on TV? Commentators that make a living offering political analysis? Freepers? Maybe they don't read the National Law Journal. Maybe they don't know the Counsel to the President of the United States. Of course, that isn't George Bush's fault. But he sure knows Miers. So do such conservative institutions as the ACLJ and Focus on the Family, and Senators and Congressmen from both sides of the aisle. It is not Bush's job to pick someone everyone knows. It is his job to pick the person he believes will do the best job defending the Constitution.
Yup.......
Move on and media matters both have been using it...
It ties to the Crony claim. That is their primary argument.
The lib blogs have it as well.
This is the first I have seen it on a conservative forum.
Thank you, George Will. I'm looking forward to the rest.
"Lets see how she measures up in committee. I think most will be surprised and fears somewhat calmed.."
As with Roberts, I don't think we'll learn a thing about where she might go from the hearings. In the end, we can only cross our fingers and wait.
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.