Posted on 10/05/2005 7:17:51 AM PDT by StandardDeviation
I've thought about it for the past couple of days, and here is why I think Ms. Meirs should NOT be confirmed. I'll take this from the stand of both Democrats and Republicans.
Democrats cannot vote for Meirs because above all things, she is a Bush crony. She could be a legacy of the Bush Administration that would haunt you for years. She thinks that W is one of the most intelligent men on Earth. Bush/Cheney will likely have her ear even after they have left the White House. A vote for her is a vote for the continued influence of the Bush Administration well past the end of his second term.
Republicans cannot vote for Meirs because she is an unknown. She was very likely picked as a big FU to your Senate leadership when they warned Bush against picking his other friend, Alberto Gonzales. You've been presented a once in a generation chance to replace a swing voter with a true conservative, but you have no solid reason to know that she will be. You might end up getting another swing voter to replace the one that is leaving the court. Sure, Bush says she shares his philosophy of strict constructionism, but given Bush's record, can you honestly say that is a philosophy that HE truly beleives in?
Have you read the posting requirements?
Harriet Myers and Abortion: a Few Clues ^
Posted by StandardDeviation to pkajj
On General/Chat ^ 10/03/2005 10:58:50 AM CDT · 22 of 24 ^I have a question for the people who are already up in arms over this pick.
Are you really disappointed because Bush didn't nominate someone who you KNOW will get the Dems to set off a filibuster?
It seems like some Republicans have been itching for a reprisal of that showdown ever since a vacancy opened up on the Court.
Personally, I'll trust Bush on his picks. I was pretty happy with Roberts, so I have no reason to be unhappy with Meirs hat this time.
I haven't heard much about her other than conflicting information on her stance regarding abortion, and that isn't a really big issue for me anyways.
Yes I did. posting should be limited to "news and information".
It's an opinion post, the information contained here is what one person (me, the author) thinks about a given topic in the news.
No where does is the term "information" qualified in any way.
"Please: NO profanity, NO personal attacks, NO racism or violence in posts."
Yet some people are walking a fine line with this one in their responses.
"Two whole days of thinking and this is your analysis.... well what about your following post..."
Right. Apparently when I said "at this time". Others thought my opinion was set in stone.
"The MAYBE is what is wrong with this picture. There were candidates whom we KNOW would be not just OK, but great. They weren't picked. "
And how do we KNOW that the other picks would be great?
Oh yeah-- because Harriet Miers picked them out for President Bush!
No one seems to be willing to acknowledge that the 'awesome alternatives' are primarily the result of Miers decisionmaking.
This makes her an obviously strong choice.
Apparently when I said "at this time".
Do keep "vanity" posts to a minimum - Free Republic is primarily a place to discuss news, articles, and editorials. Vanity posts, creations of the poster him or herself, should meet a high standard of quality before one is even considered worthy of posting. Often a relevant current thread or general announcement, catch-all thread is a much better choice for a brief question or comment.
Given that this is probably the 10,000th Meirs vanity, I think you fell short of the standard.
The interview for your boss is a bad analogy.
As chief counsel she had primary control over legal vetting for these supreme court nominees. In other words, if you like the list of alternatives, then you like the underlying philosophy of the person who created the list-- Miers.
For all the Constitutional conservatives, there is no reason why the President's nominee should not be approved. None.
Lots of gnashing of teeth over nothing.
Sorry, but that must be on the talking points they sent out.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1496939/posts
Not another Clifton
Lots of gnashing of teeth over nothing.
You are correct!
Wasn't the sentiment as of late, "Screw the Senate, advise and consent is not 'We Choose, not the President'? Now the President has chosen and some FReepers are wailing that they will be calling their Senators begging them not to confirm Miers. Totally skitzoid!
I did forget about Clifton. But most have been good.
No problem. They use to have on the opening page, but now you have to go to "help" to find it. It actually took me about 10 minutes of rummaging around the links to finally dig it up. I agree with your suggestion that they make new users read it before they sign up.
Of course there is always the learning method from the school of hard knocks. Newbies usually take a few bruises before they learn the ropes, so don't take it personally.
There have been a huge number of vanities pretty much like yours, so most of us are pretty tired of seeing them. I can't say that I completely disagree with your sentiment, but I'm patient. We'll learn more about Miers soon enough. And as far as judicial appointments go, Bush's record is good, so I'm generally inclined to trust him, for now.
No marginalizing here. Just showing how you were proving my point.
Both the President and a Senate get a say regarding who is on the SCOTUS, not just the President.
Again, another DNC talking point. All I am saying is that we are using the same language the Dims used against Roberts. Our reasoning might be different, but the words are the same.
http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2005/01/20/scherer-judges/
And what about Clifton (9th Cir), Melloy (8th Cir), O'Brien (10th Cir), Howard (1st Cir), Smith (3rd Cir)?
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.