Posted on 10/08/2005 5:50:54 PM PDT by counterpunch
Dirtboy you have been in a lot of threads on this, and I don't see how you can say that the people saying this is a bad pick haven't made some valid points, or that they have no "reason" in your book. I said the just "trust Bush" crowd as a characterization, for it appears to be the motivating factor for many people on your side of this issue. Trust Bush, he knows best, she's qualified because he says so, she's qualified because he's POTUS, and POTUS' never make mistakes (eeh, Clinton, anyone?)
Are you prepared to say that this nominee is "the most qualified" person Bush could have found? Can you honestly say that none of the points made in the article at the beginning of this thread resonate at all with you?
Actually, Dog - I respect the tone of your posts, since many of the pro-nomination posts have been quite hysterical - but in fact I read 1 or 2 points today that I hadn't seen yet. Freeping tends to be something you do in between a lot of other activities, and sometimes a similar point made by a slightly more eloquent freeper can shed new light on a point you may have already seen elsewhere.
Freepers do have the uncanny ability to analyze an issue to death - but you can't just call a time out on something and expect people to stop discussing something because you're sick of it. For better or worse, the nature of FR is often to beat something until it's way beyond a dead horse.
I can't imagine why I would feel that way. I've seen Miers belittled as a glorified personal attorney. I've seen her lack of children cited as a disqualifying factor. I've seen people call her another Souter and then belittle Bush for nominating someone he knows well - when Souter happened because Bush the Elder nominated someone he didn't know well.
I have seen some people raise valid points against Miers. But too many people, including you, aren't the ones raising those points.
I said the just "trust Bush" crowd as a characterization, for it appears to be the motivating factor for many people on your side of this issue.
Ah. So in addition to judging Miers before you even hear her viewpoints, you also resort to characterizations.
And then you wonder why you get our side so irate.
Trust Bush, he knows best, she's qualified because he says so, she's qualified because he's POTUS, and POTUS' never make mistakes (eeh, Clinton, anyone?)
Once again, Bush has made very good judicial nominees. So he gets a bit more slack here than in other areas where he has not done so well.
Are you prepared to say that this nominee is "the most qualified" person Bush could have found?
There are two problems with that question.
First of all, we have not heard Miers' viewpoints. So we cannot begin to honestly answer that question. But some will answer it anyway.
And second, Bush does not have the luxury of naming his dream candidate. He has to count votes and see who he can get confirmed. You are not privy to that kind of information. That is the kind of information he has to deal with every day.
Can you honestly say that none of the points made in the article at the beginning of this thread resonate at all with you?
Well, let's look at one point. The author raises Luttig and McConnell.
However, the same RINOs who put Bush into this position - well, some of them have said they want a female nominee to replace O'Conner.
So you and others can raise them as a possibility all you want - but they would not be confirmed. So are you really being realistic here?
That is the entire debate.
Uh, FB, your side is the one mimicking talking points used by banned trolls.
The first couple of days after her nomination were enlightening here. She was immediately cast as a pro-choice nominee, something which the forum sorted out as being completely wrong within a few hours.
Later she was identified as being very strong on 2nd Amendment rights, perhaps more so than any sitting justice. Later, it became clear that she shared the values of her evangelical church.
We know what she has accomplished. There are no missing gaps on her resume. She's clearly missing the record that a prior judicial appointment would have provided.
Not much anyone can do about that now.
So, the issues revolve around the things we don't know but will come out in the hearings. She's hardly the first nominee without a judicial track record.
I'm in the camp of "doesn't sound unreasonable, let's hear more."
Until we hear more, I'm just weary of how this is a horrible pick, the end of the Bush presidency, ad nauseum.
I've made no valid points? You haven't done your homework. And you've brought up a bunch of points I myself have never made, and left off all of the ones I have. Sorry but I don't have the energy to repost everything I've said this week, but you really should take the time to read backposts before spouting off a litany of points you wish to refute, when none of those points were ever raised by the person you're attacking.
In response to your conclusion that it's really the RINO's fault, and that Bush had few options, ergo Miers is as good as we could have expected from him - I would say you are setting the bar awfully low for something as important as the Supreme Court.
Ok doke your point is well made.
Let's Make a Deal!
Monty: Welcome to Let’s Make a Deal. Monty Hall here with you and let’s get started. Hello, and who are you?
John: I am John from Iowa.
Monty: Welcome John, let’s play! Well Jay what do you have for us this week?
Jay: This week we have Supreme Court nominees. Let’s have a look behind door number 1. It’s Harriet Miers! She’s a 60 year old Texan lawyer who has been a close advisor to the President for years. Harriet is a born again evangelical Christian who is unmarried and has no kids. A former Democrat who has drifted towards the Republican party after finding Christ. President Bush has reassured us that you will like her.
Monty: John what do you think?
John: Well President Bush promised me more, so I think I will go with door number 2.
Monty: Not so fast John, remember the gang of 7, those Republicans who compromised with the Democrats and have reportedly told the President not to send a too controversial pick.
John: Right, that does make it more difficult. Do we know anything else about this Harriet Miers?
Monty: Jay what else do we know?
Jay: Not much, unless you count gossip and rumors. Friends tell us she is pro-life and appears to believe in the individual right to bear arms. However there is also indications that she is sympathetic towards affirmative action and has a politically correct view of separation of Church and State. Did I tell you the President says you’ll like her?
John: Do I get to ask Harriet any questions?
Monty: Sure, and she will answer them as long as they don’t have anything to do with issues that might come before the court.
John: Shoot, what good is that then. So this is all I get to know about a Supreme Court lifetime appointment who is going to be a key vote in how our laws and Constitution is interpreted?
Monty: Well that’s it. So what is it going to be, Harriet Miers or door number 2?
John: Well since Bush tells us he believes this is his best choice, door number 2 is going to be worse. Can I take the goat behind door number 3? This process has made me ill.
You said this:
I don't see how you can say that the people saying this is a bad pick
So you brought all your cohorts into this debate. And I'm personally sick of most of the people on your side here. A few have been reasonable, and I've had civil exchanges with them. The rest have been major-league clymers who can't even track their own debate - as you just did here - you can't even recall your last post.
So I've had enough for tonight, because at this point, it's all friggin' hot air anyway.
I commend your plan to opt-out, as you are not making sense. Bringing in my cohorts didn't quite make me responsible for every bit of posting they've done.
Adios, dirt.
troll alert.
"Wrong, the most qualified candidate is the candidate the POTUS decides can be most depended upon to adhere to his judicial philosophy in the nominating process."
Well then, using that "standard", Bush should have chosen me.
Plus, I mowed his yard back in Austin.
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.