Put a sock in it. If it looks, walks and quacks like insanity, it is.
wow, glad you finally decided. so many of us were waiting to hear how you were going to come down on this to make up our own minds about the nomination.
Yeah, and that's why he refuses to nominate judges such as Janice Rogers Brown to the federal bench.
Wait a minute, he did.
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.
Dude, Bush has worked closely with Miers for years. She has helped screen judges such as JRB. And you think he doesn't know her friggin' temperment by now, as opposed to a judge that he has never worked with? What a pantload.
Odd how you posted this back on 10/3.
I am inclined ot agree with you. We hvae no idea what Miers' judicial philosophy will be. She could be a Scalia or a Souter. There were so many proven entities out there, and President Bush picks her.
I hope she turns out to be solid. But after all these years of work, all this money and effort, we shouldn't have to hope.
She is not an unknown to the President.
I have faith in his wise choices.
I will say that all of W's other court appointees have been solid. So MAYBE Miers will be OK.
Has Bush ever lied to you? When he ran for President he said he would nominate strict constructionists to the bench. Do you think he would nominate another Souter?
Your vanity post has no facts, just speculation, ad-hominem attacks, and opinions similiar to standard Democratic Party talking points.
The hearings could be more fun than I thought.
"The President won the election, so he picks the judges."
"How can we confirm him when we know nothing about him?"
Some of us have abandoned the first quote and adopted the second. Suckers!!!
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.
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.
I don't believe that Gonzales was ever in the running. There is no way Bush wanted to create an additional nomination fight. Bush doesn't play the "FU" game. I believe he's more interested in keeping his promise to appoint strict constructionists. He's held to this promise with his appeals court nominees and with Roberts. How you think he suddenly went off the reservation is beyond me.
OTOH, many Republicans will vote for her simply to support the President. Nothing unusual there either. Very likely Miers will be confirmed and probably turn out to be a decent Justice.
All that said, I also agree the idea advanced here and elsewhere to "just trust the President" is short-sighted. It misses a central tenet that the Democrats in the Senate have abused minority power for YEARS, and Republican voters have worked for years to give the President a sufficient majority to confirm whomever he nominates. That the President did not nominate someone who might be more controversial sends the signal that he either believes the Senate Democrats will filibuster or that the "Gang of Seven" RINOs will follow through with their threat to side with the Democrats should the Constitutional Option be invoked.
Furthermore, the President is allowing the Democrats, should yet another vacancy arise, to claim how "reasonable" they were in confirming Miers and/or Roberts as an excuse for invoking "extraordinary circumstances" with respect to the filibuster should a more controversial candidate - or merely one less liberal than the Justice he will replace - be nominated.
The problem many conservatives are having with Miers is not her track record or lack thereof, it is the impression the President is leaving that the Democrats have cowed him into nominating a somewhat unknown quantity rather than a well-known but potentially more contentious one.
Got it.
With all the Federal Judges appointed by President Bush, can you name any bad choices? hhhhmmmmmm?
Yes, I can look at Bush's record on Judicial appointments and compare it to his critics record. I can trust Bush's record, see NOTHING that gives me any reason to trust in the "Dump Miers" critic's record.
Meaningless any way. Guess you missed the 90-9 Senate vote on Terrorist Protection Amendment slid into this year's Defense Appropriation. Wars for the SC is over boys and girls. The Senators have all ready surrendered.