Whatever.
If you want a Google GMail account, FReepmail me.
They're going fast!
Posted on 10/03/2005 8:18:18 PM PDT by RebelTex
Why Harriet Miers? Why now? JMHO
2 scenarios to consider: 1. filibuster of a judicial nominee and 2. outright rejection by the Senate.
A filibuster on a judicial nominee probably can not be broken. There are at least 6 RINOs in the Senate who, from their track records, very likely would not support breaking the filibuster on any judge with a strict constructionist record on the Constitution or with a pro-life record. Neither would they be likely to vote to confirm if the filibuster were broken.
Either way, this would be a major defeat for the Republican party with profound consequences in the 2006 elections. The outrage that would come forth would target those RINOs for defeat, even if it meant losing to the Dems. The very real possibility is that Republicans could lose the Senate and possibly the House, which of course, would be a disaster from which we might not be able to recover.
If the filibuster could not be broken, then the nominee would ultimately be withdrawn and replaced either with someone unacceptable to conservatives and therefore not confirmable, or with the same type of candidate causing another unbreakable filibuster.
The prolonged fighting over such a nominee would so pre-occupy the Senate that it would severely damage if not destroy efforts to enact other conservative policies and might lead to pre-mature withdrawals from Iraq and Afghanistan or other setbacks in the WOT.
Considering that there are 2 abortion type cases on the SC docket, having the right nominee be confirmed quickly would definitely be very useful. After all, we already know how Justice O'Conner will vote.
Having no judicial track record makes it very hard for the Dems to filibuster against Harriet Miers nomination and just as hard for RINO's to oppose her.
Some of the latest comments that I have seen here on FR and elsewhere, state that Harriet Miers is a Christian and very active in her church, which church has actively supported pro-life causes. Other statements have indicated her strong belief in a strict constructionist view of the Constitution. My recommendation is for all to calm down a bit, do more accurate research and pay attention to the hearings that follow.
So be it. The GOP has proven that they are unfit to govern.
Congrats
"Vanity #13,236 on "Why" Harriet Miers?"
Dang, I was just going to post one myself. Maybe I will call my vanity "Why NOT Harriet Miers"?
Whatever.
If you want a Google GMail account, FReepmail me.
They're going fast!
LOL, Maybe I'll post a "Harriet Miers, Why wasn't I consulted?"
How many GOP senators does it take to seat a openly Pro Life nominee on the Supreme Court? 55, 60, 65, 70? How many stinking senators do we need?
I suppose you'd be PRAISING his nominations about now if history was just a bit different. I suppose you will be voting Hitlery in 2008?
"Harriet Miers, Why wasn't I consulted?"
Now that's funny. I think that title was implicit in about 98% of the posts today.
Define "GOP Senators".....if you count the LIEberal RINOs, it's pretty evenly split. Start with your own local/state elections and purge all out of the party who don't support your ideology, that's where to begin.
More than we have, obviously.
Nope. Shillary will not be getting my vote; but neither will the GOP if the don't get a REAL conservative to run.
I'll probably vote third party for POTUS, or not at all for the top of the ticket, considering that the GOP has NO b@lls and doesn't care about conservatives.
You ain't kidding, I was lurking on the main thread and couldn't believe my eyes. It was an advertisement for the need of Ritalin.
I didn't know anything about her until today and so far the Christian Groups are all lining up behind her, and I would challenge anyone to post all the names of the Liberals Bush has appointed to the Courts............ crickets chirping....... but he waits until the most important nomination to pick one...... I don't think so!
"Vanity #13,236 on "Why" Harriet Miers? Congrats"
Thanks - err, uh, I think. ;^D
Actually, I thought my point was to long to post on one of the other threads and would really be sort of off topic. I just wanted to look at the nomination from a strategy standpoint, not debate the qualifications of the nominee. IMHO, we don't yet have enough factual information to form conclusions about her qualifications or views. Sorry if the post irritated you, but I hope that others might find it worthwhile to consider.
Didn't irritate me, I was just poking fun... No offense
A vote for third party is same as a throw away or an extra vote for Hitlery. Guess you weren't around when Perot cost the GOP a few votes, huh?
"So be it. The GOP has proven that they are unfit to govern."
You've made my point - if many start to feel that way, then the GOP will suffer the results and that will not be pretty. The thought of a Gore/Kerry/Hillary or another Clinton type administration along with a Dem Congress is just too horrible to consider, a nightmare which might never end.
Yes I was, and the Nation suffered as a result.
Apparently, the lesson didn't sink in to our GOP political masters.
As far as I'm concerned, a Hillary presidency might spark a sorely needed revolution, and our Nation would then be better off.
"No offense."
None taken. There have been a huge number of posts on this nomination - lots of emotion there.
There is one good thing about it all, though. I don't think one could call us the 'silent' majority anymore, heheh.
Agreed, but apparently the GOP didn't learn anything from the LAST Bush presidency.
a nightmare which might never end.
Oh, it would end; even if it took an armed revolution.
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.