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If the filibuster could not be broken, then the nominee would ultimately be withdrawn and replaced either with someone unacceptable to conservatives and therefore not confirmable, or with the same type of candidate causing another unbreakable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.
Ummm...there wouldn't be a nation left after Hitlery. We would all be subjects of the U.N. with the liar-in-chief as it's leader.
I once took an oath (that I still consider binding) to "defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic". I further consider that most elected officials of BOTH major parties to be domestic enemies.
Hence my statement: The GOP is obviously unfit to govern.
"As far as I'm concerned, a Hillary presidency might spark a sorely needed revolution, and our Nation would then be better off."
HUSH - don't even think like that. I got cold chills down my spine as I read your words. Don't give up, never give in, never surrender to the Dark Side. Have faith, we will prevail.
I know what you mean... I get cold chills thinking about it too.
I know what it would mean for my family.
But, I tell you this, when the military and/or police comes house-to-house seizing guns (like they did in NOLA after Katrina) from law-abiding citizens, you know the end is near. If the come for mine, they'll get them - bullets first.
You should consider spending less time at Camp Cindy....you've adopted her talking points.
Ping - What say y'all?
I for one do not see the downside to making the Dems use a filibuster. It would legitimize the tactic for the GOP to use in the future. If the filibuster was a legitimate tool, perhaps the GOP could stop the next Ruth Bater Ginsburg. It would also paint the Democrats as extreme and keep the GOP base happy seeing most of the GOP willing to fight for their cause. I hope Harriet is as conservative as some believe, but a fight might not have been a bad thing, win or lose.
"...but a fight might not have been a bad thing, win or lose."
You have some valid points, but overall, IMO, I don't think this is the right time - too many other important items on the table, like: making the tax cuts permanent, reforming the tax system (flat tax or sales tax), fixing Social Security, securing our borders, the WOT, reducing the size of the federal government, eliminating pork and other wasteful spending, making sure that hurricane relief is effective and not boondoggles, etc. I think a prolonged filibuster at this time would be very bad for our agenda. Besides freezing action on these items, it would create huge pressure for bad compromises on important issues.
I'd really hate to 'Perot' in another Clinton. That flashback would be a bit much.
Do me a favor: write me back in 2½ years and tell me how much of the above the spineless douches we elected actually push through. I'll bet you 3:1 odds that NOTHING is done.
The GOP base isn't a political party, it's a cargo cult.
Don't give up or lose hope. 2006 is very important for deciding the direction of the country and EVERYONE (conservative, that is) is needed to make a difference.
Keep the faith.
FReegards,
RT
No offense, but I heard the same thing in 2002 and 2004.
Who said it would be easy? Don't expect everything to be fixed overnight - we have made some progress: the original tax cuts, the WOT, avoiding recession and stimulating the economy, first steps in overhauling the UN and rooting out leftists in the CIA and State department, revitalizing the Military, installing more conservative judges, highlighting and marginalizing RINOs, etc.
Giving up when the going gets tough is defeatist in nature and is exactly what the Dems want us to do. Disagree with policies or direction, fight for what you believe in, make your voice heard, but don't give up.
Change may be slow, but it is change. Understand how long it takes to accomplish change and realize our goals. It will happen.
I am in agreement with you 100%.
I voted for Pres. Bush -- and that included the realization that I'd have to trust his judgment based on his promises.
He always promised to be a compassionate conservative, so I wasn't surprised at his willingness to bust the budget.
But on judicial nominees he always stood for non-activist, strict constructionist.....It appears to me that Miers is just that based on interviews I've heard with those who know her.
Also, SHE WAS THE ONE who vetted all the candidates that everyone is clamoring for the Pres. to nominate. In that at least, she didn't have a tin ear.
I'm not calling on conservatives to hold their fire at their own.....I'm calling on them to quit that self-destructive foolishness and get behind this candidate and this president.
"...I'm calling on them to quit that self-destructive foolishness and get behind this candidate and this president."
Right on. The 2006 elections will be very important and all of us need to be on the same page.
And less contention in the hearings would remove an arrow from the quiver of the Democrats in next year's campaigns - they are counting on ideological showdowns for funding and to energize their base. Sadly, some on our side too would rather fight than win.
And if she as an associate justice decides as most Christian conversatives would on the abortion cases, then it puts an arrow in our quiver for the next general election because it proves progress.
Excellent insights, xzins! I join you in appealing to other Christian conservatives to stand for this candidate and president.
It would kind of be nice to know exactly what we are getting behind. Maybe that is asking too much....
If your situation permitted, hopefully you just watched the Presidential news conference in which he gave detailed reasons for his selection and support. He overly emphasized, stomped his foot, snorted, underscored, yellow-highlighted when he said, "I know her. You know I've said I'll support strict constructionist, non-activist judges."
He couldn't have been more clearly sending a signal.
The conference is still ongoing and he is speaking of her again.
"Sadly, some on our side too would rather fight than win."
ROTFLOL
That phrase reminds me of the old Tarryton cigarette slogan: "I'd rather fight than switch" and the display of a man with a black eye, heheh.
I'm so glad you agree. (Having one of FR's legends agree with me is definitely a high honor.) Here's a new thread that someone just recently posted (which links to this excellent article: americanthinker.com )
The whole article is worth reading as it details excellent points on the strategy of this nomination. (I had not seen it when I posted this thread or I would have linked to it at the top.)
For those who are still not convinced, I suggest that you ask yourselves the same question that Rush asked yesterday, "Would you go to war with this Republican Senate as your army?" LOL
FReegards,
RT
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.