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.
You Bush shills have a difficult time staying on message, don't you? Maybe you are staying on message? That's okay. I'm man enough to take it. Keep trying sissy boy.
1) Fighting is not always bad. If it didn't work, people wouldn't do it.
2) It does matter if win or lose, but what I suggest is that the real victory is more about conservatism than about Miers. We don't do our belief system justice by trying to sneak it in the back door. As a side note, I think a true conservative could have been confirmed by the senate.
3) The only time the blowback hurts republicans is when they stray from the core, defining beliefs: strong defense, small govt, etc. Fights that allow us to openly define who we are serve to educate libs and expose dems. That is always to our favor because we have better ideas.
4) Someone needs to beat Kennedy and Biden over the head.
This is starting to remind me of 1991-92. No one is pure and undefiled enough for some on the Right. Lurkers from the DU must be lovin' this!
No we don't! We need to work on educating ourselves as to what the Constitution says and election people to office who have done so!
The CONGRESS has the power to corral these activist but has, thus far at least, failed to exercise its power. For example:
The Constitution says that "The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour..."
Who determines what the term "good behavior" means? Does "good behavior" include relying on foreign law to support one's opinions?
Bush is more conservative than the alternatives have been by a long shot. I would place him between a strong conservative on all levels, and a moderate-conservative. He's far more conservative than any moderate Republican, and more conservative overall than McCain is. And really, we will know if Miers is a strict constructionist conservative Justice in a few months not years. There are very important cases coming up this term which just started, and if she finds along with Roberts and Scalia and Thomas even just 3 out of 4 times, she will easily be much more conservative than o'conner ever was, and that will be a HUGE win for conservativism.
There are many conservatives out there that just look for an excuse to be offended. I think they major in offense taking. They are forever standing on their principles and losing. They are the proud losers of the political world. They will never obtain power because at the slightest provocation they pick up their marbles and go home.
Well, here they go again. To paraphrase Ronald Reagan.
I think Harreit Miers is an excellent choice. I believe that she will be more conservative than Roberts.Ibelieve that 2 years from now all the nay sayers will have to eat crow. As a graduate of an elitest eastern college, I do not believe that you have to have a degree from Harvard or Yale to be brilliant. Some of the people I graduated with who were considered "brilliant" didn't have enough sense to pour piss out of a boot with the instructions on the heel. (An Old Texas saying.)
President Bush has known this woman for 10 years. He has worked with her everyday. He is an excellent judge of character and talent. He is a graduate of both Yale and Harvard. Contrary to the political propaganda put out by the Dems, he isn't short of billiance in his own right. You don't graudate from either school without a great deal of intellect in your own right. It doesn't matter who your father is. Just ask Ted Kennedy. He got thrown out of Harvard for cheating and all of his Daddy's money didn't help.
I trust President Bush. If he says she's as conservative as Scalia, she will be.
What you said is not only innacurate and jumbled, it also pre-supposes that you actually know something to indicate she's not what EVERYONE WHO KNOWS HER says she is, which you don't. So you're trying to disassemble our points when you don't even have any fact based points of your own. How does that work for you?
Congratulations. I wish we could say the same for GWB. I think this pick is an indication that he may be back on the sauce or worse.
I'm not looking for "pure and undefiled." I am looking for some sort of record of some sort of conviction. I don't see that.
If you are referring to 1991-92 and George H. W. Bush, I think conservative objections were very well founded.
I can keep up find; I've got your number, as have most of us here.
The fallout, therefrom, cleves along spiritual, not intellectual lines."
Can you provide a source where President Bush promised that he would nominate a Christian SCJ?
Just another "straw man" to further divide the base.
Anytime some one indicates that they are "Christian-Conservative", I question both assertions. I am a Christian first and then I am Conservative.
er..........fine....(multitasking error!)
Good post. I think it's hilarious how often the conventional knowledge is complete fantsy.
Ya, and we got the Clinton curse for eight agonizing years as a result!
It is clear that the most important thing that you prefer, is more cronyism and incompetance in government.
Well, therein lies the rub. You want me to vote for the Democrat instead of Oly Snowe or Susan Collins? Politics is an insider's game, and is designed to be relatively "closed" to us peons.
How?
I was re-stating the various explanations you and Cedric had given, in support of Miers, in one sentence. It was meant to illustrate how convoluted your reasoning is. Get it?
You said there was a huge market in embryos. I expect to see evidence of that.
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.