Posted on 10/08/2005 9:52:18 AM PDT by Allen H
Since I’m sure there are still many conservatives out there who are still upset and whining about Bush not nominating who they wanted, I’m wondering. Do you wish Bush had nominated who you wanted, even if it meant them not being confirmed and Bush being forced to pick a milk toast? I don’t think anyone can argue about the fact that the Republican majority in the Senate haven’t exactly acted with a spine or any kind of united strong conservative voice the four years they’ve been a majority. And it seems the larger their majority gets, the more its spine gets watered down.
This is a reality lesson in life. There are two ways to stand strong to your convictions and beliefs and not waiver. You can go about your life, putting your beliefs into practice, never bending, never breaking, never compromising, and whenever anyone asks what you believe, you tell them, politely, civilly, like how Miers has done it. OR, you can do it another way. You can be all those same things above, and you can also be very vocal, very "in your face", very confrontational, outspoken, and be very well known as to what you believe and stand for, so that if you come up for a position like Supreme Court Justice, it’s known immediately which side of the court you will always come down on. The Scalia / Thomas side, or the Ginsburg / Stevens side. The latter is the kind of person that Michael Luddig, Pricilla Owens, Edith Jones, or David Pryor, who I would sure support. Frankly that’s the kind of person I am, and I was hoping they'd of gotten this nomination. I’m not quite "in your face" with liberals unless confronted, but I also will not sit like a wall flower while people say stupid liberal things in the face of reality. I wouldn’t expect to be nominated for the SCOTUS either. Being that way is not bad in any way, but it is a problem. It’s guaranteeing a nasty, long, drawn out, ugly fight that would not even guarantee ALL the Republicans standing with the President. If Bush thought that the Republican majority in the Senate actually had a spine and would stand up to a fight, I think he would have likely put up someone like Juddig or Jones. I think this pick is an indictment on the complete and total lack of conservative will in the Senate majority. Heck, this woman he did pick stands as a solid conservative nominee with all those who have endorsed her, and not all Republicans are backing her. The bottom line is, Harriet Miers WILL be confirmed, and she much more likely than not, will prove to be a conservative, indications show she will be much like Scalia and Thomas. And if you voted for President Bush both times, like I did, or just one time, then you have to trust that he will keep his promise on Judges, like he has so faithfully kept it to this point. There hasn’t been one single Judge on the district, appellate or federal court level that Bush has nominated that hasn’t been a strong unbending conservative. And this is one fact I STILL can’t get around that frustrates me with those opposing Miers. Miers was pivotal in choosing ALL the Judges that Bush has nominated to all the courts the past five years, all of which have proven to be good solid conservatives that all the conservative voters have liked so much. Yet somehow the person who found, supported, and brought all those good conservative judges to the President, somehow isn’t good enough to be a judge herself when she’s accomplished all the things she’s done in her life? That is simply the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard. Especially after it’s been proven she said now she was worried that perhaps John Roberts might not be conservative enough. And some conservatives are still not supporting her? ARE YOU FRIKKEN KIDDING ME??? THAT is just simply elitism and nothing else.
I was worried initially, because I desperately wanted an Owens, or Luiddig, or someone just like them, someone that was nose to the wind, finger pointing and shaking to the left, well known vocal hard conservative, BUT, if the person put up instead of them is just like that, with the same conservative ideological beliefs, just isn’t a well known confrontational person who will unite all liberals and democrats and milk-toast weak RHINO Republicans against them, then I will choose the Miers over the Owens or Luddig EVERY TIME, because frankly I have NO FAITH in the Republican Senate majority, and while I am more like the judicial Luddig’s and Jones’s, I’ve still seen nothing that yet shows she’s any less conservative than they are. When she gave money to algore, he was pro-life and hadn’t taken the pink liberal without reason pill yet, and since then she has been nothing but a conservative loyalist on all levels, professionally, personally, and religiously. She voted for Reagan in ‘84, she voted for the first Bush in ‘88. Once she became a registered Republican she stayed Republican and voted and worked and donated that way even when clinton was President, even in ‘91 and ’92 when the democrats controlled both Houses of Congress. Not one person who really knows her has come out against her nomination. Frum is the only one I’ve heard of who has worked with her and doesn’t support her, and that was years ago and it’s not as though Frum doesn’t have his own agenda. None of Bush’s judges has disappointed. They’ve all been proven to be very conservative constructionist judges, and there is no reason to believe Miers will be any different. The arguments is stale and smacks of elitism at this point. I prefer someone who hasn’t been indoctrinated by the snobbery of Yale and Harvard liberalism, and has lived most all of her life in very conservative Texas. Even when Texas was majority Democrat, it was conservative and had nothing in common with the radical New England and left coast liberal bases of operation. Instead of being a judge she’s been actually arguing law from the conservative perspective, not sitting on high on a bench disconnected from reality. What is so wrong with that? She will be confirmed, and more and more, I believe she will prove herself to be a dedicated defender of the Constitution and what it REALLY says, not what stevens and souter and ginsburg wish or think it says. Her votes I believe will consistently fall right with Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas and John Roberts, and when that time comes, I hope all here who eviscerated her just because she’s not some elitist insider snob, or a speak first think second hothead that would inflame all democrats and RINOs in the Senate, will remember just how vacuous the opposition to her really was, and just how wrong it has proven to be. Given the past 20 years of her life, I can’t see any rational way she will betray all she has proven to stand for the past two decades. And if you voted for and supported W. Bush last year and in 2000, then for Pete’s sake, show just a little faith and trust in the guy and believe that he would have gotten to know this woman the past 10 years he’s had a close relationship with her. Have a little faith. With faith as small as a mustard seed, a mountain can be moved. I choose to have faith and pray that Harriet Miers will be the conservative strict-constructionist Justice that this nation desperately needs right now, and pray that she will have the strength and wisdom to adjudicate in that way, and continue to display and enforce the beliefs and convictions on the bench, that she has so strongly lived in her life.
Yes, because when Bush wins, conservatives lose.
Bush has not earned the right to say, "trust me."
1) He didn't keep his word on embryonic stem cells and created a market in embryos, which is what the culture of death wants.
2) Bush signed McCain/Feingold. His conservative princpled stand rested on hoping the Supreme Court would do what he was afraid to do - kill it.
3) Bush has yet to oppose a dime in socialism.
4) Bush is proud of recruiting Kennedy to write his education bill.
5) Bush created a whole new entitlement - prescription drugs. It wasn't something he was pressured into, either. It's passed and signed but no one wants it.
So are you suggesting that the Republican Senate Majority has displayed strength of will when it comes to standing up for conservative values in their legislation and has been willnig to be the majority no matter what the democrats thing? I have seen a vastly different senate in action the past three years. And will you feel the same in a couple years after it's clear that Miers is a firm conservative Justice like Thomas and Scalia?
And some folks will never EVER learn it seems!
Are you sober?
There would not be all this fear and whining if the Supreme Court judges were not nominated for lifetime positions. We need to work on term limits for these clowns.
I try to use paragraphs, but I type so fast adn forget to sometimes use the < p > just hit enter and forget that doesn't work in html. I get so in my thoughts that I forget html and all that. Sorry. 8)
That's the best description I've seen yet!
I just call them the Wrist Slitter Conservatives.
You're a man of limited words, I see.
Post evidence of this. This is news to me.
Yes. For years, now. You must be confusing me with all-thumbs-Allen H.
Projecting?
and you still can't keep up.
But your premise hasn't even got a basis in reality or fact. For it to, she would have to have been a liberal, and even when she was a democrat decades ago she wasn't a liberal. The only way your premise is at all factual is a few years from now, IF she has an established pattern of adjudicating as a liberal or moderate, in direct contravention of conservative constructionist ideals. The evidence about her personally and professionally points to the exact opposite. If she was good enough to pick Luddig, and Jones, and Owens, and Brown and ALL the others you think should have had the nominiation, then why isn't she good enough to have it herself when she was the main person picking conservative Judges for Bush to appoint? Please expalin that. She was concerned that Roberts wasn't even conservative enough so that means she's right of Roberts, and that now somehow isn't conservative enough? He was only a Judge two years before he was confirmed. Exactly how much experience do you figure he had in those two years? And Thomas and Scalia didn't have a mountain of judicial experience before being nominated. I mean come on. This is just plain silly.
However, I will submit to you that after the hearings are concluded, we will all be able to make a much more informed decision.
That's exactly what they want. A big fight with a shame-faced Bush loss so that they can get their rocks off on finally showing Bush who's boss!
The Senate in the their Gang of 14 Compromise this year told all of us including the President how they intended to operate and they didn't care about the Constitution. Our alternative is vote them out of office. I'm from Illinois. It would be great to get two new Senators.
Of course not. I just wonder why such a conservative, pro-life activist, traditional Christian chooses to attend such liberal churches. The Episcopal Church is fairly diverse, but it is uniformly liberal in DC. The ECUSA was active in fighting the Partial Birth Abortion Ban, and is one of the most vocal supporters of gay marriage. It's fine if Miers enjoys that environment (I like fighting the good fight in the belly of the beast, myself), but I'm not going to shout from the rooftops about her attendence of conservative churches- this would be untrue. There are far more conservative churches in DC, so St. John's is not her only option.
In a way, I'm sorry to hear that because the other explanations for the tenor and content of your contributions to this thread are much more disturbing.
In a May 18, 2001, letter to the President of the Culture of Life Foundation, then candidate Bush stated his opposition to embryonic stem cell research:
"I oppose Federal funding of stem-cell research that involves destroying living human embryos. I support innovative medical research on life-threatening and debilitating diseases, including promising research on stem cells from adult tissue."
I and millions of other pro-lifers took this man at his word. I’d been made aware of the President’s being a Born Again Christian, and the statement struck me as indicative of a gentleman that confesses Christ.
But Thursday evening, politician Bush broke his promise, despite claims to the contrary by the President’s underlings. By allowing for the federal funding for the research on 60 existing stem cell lines, the President has given his tacit approval of the procedure. By rationalizing that he isn’t really contradicting earlier promises because these 60 lines "were created from embryos that have already been destroyed," the President is engaging in semantic gymnastics, the sort of hair-splitting used by former president Clinton that drew so much ire from conservatives.
How is it stealth when she's been an outspoken pro-live Christian, opposing abortion professionally and personally, she's voted Republican, represented Republicans, worked on a Republican administration for five years, been a Republican President's lead council for five years, and been pivotal in picking ALL of the President's judicial nominees for ALL levels of the judiciary, and ALL of them have proven to be strong constructionist conservative judges? Again, I ask, how is it that she was good and conservative enough to pick Brown and Owens and Luddig and Pryor and Roberts, but she's not good enough to be a Justice herself with her long list of accomplishments the past 35 years? Please explain that to me.
Talk about starting an argument from false assumptions and false dichotomies.
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.