Posted on 10/08/2005 9:52:18 AM PDT by Allen H
I guess we'll just have to see what we see. Picking a fight just to pick a fight is NOT why you do it. And over the past five years I am more and more pissed at the so called "Republican majority" in the Senate who has proven time and again they are so moderated in their majority and not a strong conservative majority that will act like the majority, and have allowed the Senate to be held hostage by the democrat minority TIME AND AGAIN! I'm sick of that and have NO confidence in the Republicans in the Senate. Not as a majority. And do you not remember the fact that we got Kennedy and Suiter on the SCOTUS because the real hard conservatives were defeated? Well the fact is the Republican Senate majority of today does not act with anymore authority or sense of purpose than the Republican minority in the Senate did back then. That's just a fact. If the end result is that Miers is a strong conservative constructionist on the court, THAT IS ALL I CARE ABOUT! I would like to see a fight but that kind of deliberate confrontational state of mind is NOT what built the conservative majority. It was built on doing what was right being vocal about it and standing by it, and someone like Miers with her history and personal beliefs are clearly in line with that philosophy. The idea that it would be better somehow if she was some elitist harvard grad who had been a judge the past ten years and made all the beltway parties in D.C. is assinine on so many levels.
I won't be eating crow. She won't be making it in.
I'm saying that if the WH is not willing to put up for review a known conservative jurist - just as a Dem WH does on their side w liberal jurists - then why vote for Reps in the Senate in the first place? I'm saying that, yes, your argument is tired, and reflects poorly on the WH and the Senate. Neither you or I know what would happen in terms of an actual vote on Luttig or McConnell or Alito, or Thompson or Jones, etc. It may be true that JRB would probably fail, but the others are open to being voted in, if given a chance. And if the players are not so tired to try.
And Cedric accused me of boozing?
More of the Coulter-type slime.
I wondered when some knuckle-dragger would trot this out.
Please observe the First Rule Of Holes.
LOL! Man is that ever the truth! I love it!
OK. But this begs the question. How can you emphatically trust someone that for whatever reasons, fails to secure our borders, (during wartime yet) drives spending through the roof, and signs every social spending program that crosses his desk?
Hmm you gives me two choices...
#1.. whineing about Miers...
#2.. Goose stepping with the bots and being goosed by the boot of the bot, to my rear..
Hmmm..
We may have won the '92 election and avoided the 8 agonizing years (what a nightmare they were!) if we had run a conservative. Many interpreted the election as "new moderate" vs "old moderate," so the election was swung in the "new guy's" favor. I remember people believing that Clinton was more pro-life than Bush, Sr., etc. I was, in fact, a supporter of Bush, Sr. in 1992. I am far more conservative than he or his son, but I will vote for the better of the available candidates in each election.
If your objective is to get a person, any person, on the bench, then this comment would make sense. Our goal, and W's promise, was to get conservatives of the Scalia-Thomas stripe on the bench.
That objective was worth the fight. (And this kind of "fight" has no real casualties, supply lines, or terrain concerns, as Sun Tzu centered so much of his thought upon, making the application of his strategy even less meaningful.)
Once again, spineless Republicans think that they are somehow vulnerable when they stand up and proclaim that they want conservatives in government. Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. Pathetic.
There a big difference between actual combat and political wranging. I'm a political historian so please don't be coy. When lives are at stake and a nation is on the line, you do what you have to, even if it's not the safe choice. This is so different it's silly to even make the comparrison. Miers can easily accomplish the same thing that a Luddig type can accomplish on the SC, without the fight. And given how the Republican majority in the Senate has acted for five years with a total lack of resolve for conservative committment, I have no faith that a Luddig type would get through the Senate. The main goal is to get a conservative strict constructionist on the court, and I base my opinions on FACTS, NOT supposition. NOT coulda shoulda woulda. Bush 41 didn't even know Souter. Reagan didn't know O'conner or Kennedy. W. Bush knows Miers and has known her for over a decade, and she picked all the conservative Judges that Bush has put up the past five year, and have you noticed how not ONE OF THEM has turned out to be anything less than a strong constructionist conservative Judge? I'm sorry but even though I am scared of being burned with another suiter or o'conner, I just don't have that feeling this time. I believe that Miers will be a good conservative Justice that will prove that in time with her findings like Thomas and Scalia. That is all that matters. And I base that on what I know and people that know her personally. Not what MIGHT happen and people who never even sat in the same room with the woman. I prefer to base my opinions on something a little more substantial than supposition from people out of the loop.
It's stealth because the discussions and arguments are and will be more about what her positions are, and less about why her positions are the right ones under the Constitution.
BTW, stealth is not my only objection. I am concerned that a charge of cronyism is not incredible with this nomination.
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.
You missed the thrust of my first post to you. She may be "to the right of Atilla the Hun," maybe she is more radically conservative than I am (but I doubt it =:-O). She might be great, but her nomination isn't. It's a risky way to advance constitutionalism.
And that is EXACTLY what those of you who INSIST that we must have a knock down drag out fight simply for the sake of having a knock down drag out fight generally accomplish with the effort!
..How can you emphatically trust someone that for whatever reasons, fails to secure our borders, (during wartime yet) drives spending through the roof, and signs every social spending program that crosses his desk?..
- I support and trust the president in his prosecution of the war on terror based on his actions since 9-11.
- I am deeply suspicious of any of his policies regarding immigration and border control because of his awful record in that area.
- I am completely opposed to his policies on spending and the budget.
- I support and trust the president in the appointment of Harriet Miers because of his excellent track record in this area.
This approach seems reasonable to me.
The Left is currently engaged in a furious attempt to convine Americans that Bush is incompetent and weak. If he'd have sent up a Luddig {for example} and Specter, Snowe, Collins, et al bolt and Bush loses the nomination fight, then what?
We are in agreement up to this point.
Well the fact is the Republican Senate majority of today does not act with anymore authority or sense of purpose than the Republican minority in the Senate did back then. That's just a fact.
Again, we agree.
If the end result is that Miers is a strong conservative constructionist on the court, THAT IS ALL I CARE ABOUT! I would like to see a fight but that kind of deliberate confrontational state of mind is NOT what built the conservative majority. It was built on doing what was right being vocal about it and standing by it...
You are on a roll.
The idea that it would be better somehow if she was some elitist harvard grad who had been a judge the past ten years and made all the beltway parties in D.C. is assinine on so many levels.
Here, you have me confused with someone else. You have been valiant defending your position, but so much activity, defending so many arguments, has falsely led you to attribute to me an argument I have not made. I think Miers will do well. The substance of my posts has been that the conservative movement fares better by openly stating its positions and proudly waving the banner--and if that stance demands a confrontation with our enemies, better now than later. If we can't get a capital C, vocal, known conservative into the Supreme Court with a Republican president and a Republican Senate, then the time is nigh to replace them. The president is acting like he is afraid to carry the conservative banner. My problem is not with Miers. It is with those who would delegitimize conservatism in the public eye.
As for the embryo-harvesting industry, look around at the major universities and research hospitals. Many of the "find-a-cure" disease associations do or fund Embryonic Stem Cell Research. That taxpayer funding can be used for any of this life-taking research is unethical and ridiculous.
Really? So if I lived in a neighborhood with a high murder and crime rate, with great potential for bad guys to sneak into my home and kill me, and I decided to refuse to lock my doors and windows and secure my home, would you trust me?
You inserted the word, "huge."
"By allowing for the federal funding for the research on 60 existing stem cell lines,"
There I've spelled it out for you. Now, you can get back to your shillin'.
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.