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.
Is that how Allen H explained it to you?
You make statements you can't support. You should know you can't get away with that around here.
OH brilliant. God you are a child. So now, no one has the right to talk unless they've been here a long time and given money to Free Republic and are part of some clique like you are huh? Your posts is EXACTLY what conservatives are NOT supposed to be like. You made an insulting childish comment about me, I called you on it, and your response was to name call and curse. You are totally not worth responding to, and you are totally not a conservative, at least not one that things the conservative ideals are worth acting on, not just preaching to others. Have a good weekend.
Ummm, Allen H, this isn't about you. This is about president Bush using political capital he doesn't have to name an unknown and the ensuing backlash. We know that you love president Bush unconditionally. That's nice. He needs lemmings like you. Meanwhile, us conservatives will keep up the fight.
We implore you, sir, stop digging!
Bush assumed office in January of 2001. He wasnt a candidate anymore in May of 2001, he was President..
I'm not digging. I've buried you and sink and I'm loving every minute of it.
Your argument would have been better if you avoided the insult. If you had read a bit more of Allen's posts, you would know he does not support Bush unconditionally. Like you, I disagree with him, but I bet that if you were face to face and surrounded by liberals, you'd be best friends.
Infighting ought to be about ideas, not insults.
There is no doubt in my mind that President Bush is an exceptionaly capable executive. He knows how to use his power to advance his objectives.
I reluctantly admit having thoughts that adherence to the Constitution and shrinking the intrusion of federal government into domestic affairs may not be in harmony with his goals.
They are forever standing on their principles and losing.
So principle should be abandoned? Turned stealthy? What?
(1) She got the nomination over several vastly more qualified people. I'm sure there's a game theory element to it, but I find it quite hard to believe there were no darkhorse candidates with even basic qualifications in constitutional law.
(1a) This is the worst possible issue to be defeatist on. I don't trust the Republican senators either. But of all possible fights to pick, this is the one you pick. You don't just pre-emptively throw in the towel on a Supreme Court nomination.
(2) All the evidence I have of her conservative credentials is the word of a president who has not exactly been a conservative stalwart. I don't feel like committing that much blind faith to Bush these days.
So there ya go.
The thought that a knucklehead like Harry Reid would support her makes my ambush alarm start ringing.
I'm wondering how much of her work as White House Counsel will result in her recusal in issues coming before the court. Depending on what Robert's vote would be we have the potential of a deadlocked court on some important issues.
Well she argued that the ABA not have a pro-choice stance, she's given money to just about every pro-life organization there is, been actively pro-life in her church as stated by many long time conservative members, most notably, TX Supreme Court Justice Nathan Hecht, and even as a democrat she was Pro-Life and never supported abortion. narwal and now are strongly against her and have launched campaigns to defeat her nomination in addition to that. I mean, how much more pro-life in her past does she have to be? Is the only way someone is proven to be pro-life if they've been arrested outside an abortion clinic? Because if that's the case, most people against abortion, aren't pro-life either. She's just as pro-life as anyone rational is.
Not to be coy, but is there anything that you've done in your life that you consider makes you more pro-life than her? I sure can't think of anything in my life that makes me "more pro-life" than her. If this becomes a "not pro life enough" contest, conservative politics is in real trouble. I hate to think the Republican party could become that childish. "I'm redder than you!" is beyond childish. I stood at the Texas State Republican convention as a delegate arguing against watering down ANY of the Patriot Act provisions, because I believe that my Constitutional rights are second to the safety and security of the country, and if the FBI wants to randomly monitor my phone calls to check for key words and find terrorists, then sobeit. I know I'm not doing anything wrong or immoral or illegal, so more power to the FBI if it helps them catch terrorists and stop plots like they have this past week. Does all this make me "more red / more republican" then you? No. And it would be stupid and childish to argue that it did. I will pray and trust that she is as pro-life as her actions demonstrate until she gives me some reason to believe other wise.
Additionally, and I expect to get really flamed for this. I won't even consider the upholding of roe vs. wade as evidence that she's not conservative enough. Frankly, I do not believe that it should be overturned. Even though I do not like or agree with abortion under ANY circumstance. As my father says, "God is pro-choice" and "you can't legislate morality". I believe both of those. God is pro-choice, He gives people the right to make whatever mistakes and stupid decisions they want. They also have the right to pay for those mistakes and stupid decisions, like abortion. You CANNOT legislate morality. CANNOT and SHOULD NOT. Like homosexuality. It's abhorrant, and repulsive, and unnatural, and a sin, but it should not ever be made illegal or a crime. If people want to sin or do something that is bad for them, they will do it with or without a law making the action illegal. I believe more Christians believe that than will actually say it. Overturning roe vs. wade would not really accomplish anything. Because you cannot pass or do away with a law and force people to be more moral. If people want abortions, they have the GOD given right to make that horrible wicked decision, and God will deal with them accordingly. Just wanted to elaborate on that because I know a lot of people are planning on saying that no conservative on the court is a REAL conservative if they upheld roe vs. wade. It's horrible decision, and was moronic to have ever been made into law, but it's reversal doens't remove the problem. I wouldn't be disappointed if it's overturned, but it wouldn't end abortion by a long shot. That needs to be understood, and I think Scalia, and Thomas, and Roberts and now Miers understand that also.
-bump-
I don't think President Bush aims to delegitimize conservatism, but I am disappointed that neither he nor the GOP are -openly- advancing it.
Actually, I have avoided the insults...I've been fending them off left and right. Sorry, if I disappointed you.
There must be a market for embryonic stem cells, otherwise it would be a non-issue. SOmebody is interesting in experimenting and research with embryonic stem cells. The market exists indpendently of government influence. Of course, provideing Fed money via grants and whatnot would increase the amount of activity.
Picking a fight just for the sake of picking a fight is not how you do things. Not in real war, and not in politics. Only a fool wishes to start shooting guns and go to war, if the same end can be accomplished without the war. There is more than one way to get a real conservative Constructionist on the court, and it is the preferable way when the Senate Republicans cannot be trusted to back a hard liner. They flat can't be trusted. Do you want to put the future of the court in the hands of people like Snowe, Chaffee, Collins, Spector, McCain and others??? I sure as heck don't! If they had some brass in the Senate, sure thing, but they have proven in the past five years the Senate has NO REAL CONSERVATIVE MAJORITY WILL! NONE! They are untrustworthy, and putting up a known inflamitory well known conservative firebrand that will stir up even moderate democrats, THAT is how you end up with another kennedy, o'conner, or souter on the court. Because the firebrand would be defeated on the floor, if it even got out of committee, and then Bush is forced to pick a real moderate because of that defeat. It is stupid to even risk a major defeat when the same goal can be achieved and he can put in someone he has known for over ten years, that he knows for certain is a strong Christian and a strict constructionist and originalist. THAT is the goal. Not to have a big fight. And frankly, come next November, moderates and swing voters will look more favorably on a party that did what they wanted without picking a fight, and that only helps the Republican majority. Conservatives who don't vote because Bush didn't pick "their guy" are stupid children and serve to only help the democrats get back power. Republicans would be wise to just gulp a little, pray, and see how this pans out, because I believe that by next November, it will be obvious this was a good pick, and the Republican party will be better for taking the high road and not picking a major nasty fight when it was not the only resort. There are plenty of nasty fights still to be had. Like when either Stevens or Ginsburg retires or dies. You think THAT will go without a fight, when you know Bush won't appoint a lib to replace them? I think it would be wise to keep the powder dry until then. Not to mention the fact that Bush's plate is more than a little full right now and was already overflowing before Chief Justice Renquist passed away. I wish people would look at the big picture before critiquing.
Under no circumstances would I trust your decisions or advice when it came to matters of safety or security. For the sake of your dependants, I would do everything in my power to try to influence you in the direction of taking necessary precautions.
Hope that makes better sense.
Me too. I'm torn. I love the president's character, and thank God we have a grown up in the White House. At the same time, it is impossible to deny that he has made mistakes.
What you said is my biggest problem with all this. I have NO problem with those concerned with the potential that Miers could be a souter traiter, because I'm one of them! I am scared to death about that, but given the evidence, it seems VERY unlikely. What irritates me is the fact that it is the people so opposed to Miers who are creating the Republican divide. It is possible to have concern, but keep the strong language against it to themselves to keep the conservative movement together, and not give the libeals something to be happy about, and wait and see what actually happens before griping about her. All the griping will NOT change this nomination. She WILL be the next Justice. All the griping does is make the democrats stronger, and weaken the conservative movement because of fighting within. That's the bottom line. THAT is my biggest problem with all the anti-Miers talk. Not because there are those against it. But because they're understanding of the big picture is apparently so limited that they don't see that the loud voicing of those concerns gives the democrats just what they want. THAT is what I cannot stand. I have the same concernes, but I'm not going to sell out to them and give the liberals what they want to fire up their base! I will give Bush and Miers the benefit of the doubt and keep my fears and concerns under my hat until she does something to prove them correct. To do othewise does nothing but hurt the conservative movement on the whole, and give democrats in Congress the idea that they can oppose the President on more of his agenda because his conservative base is NOT united, which is the very picture conservatives against Miers are giving the democrats! Good for them for voicing their opposition to Miers! The Conservative majority suffers for it! ;|
Infighting ought to be about ideas, not insults.
- bump -
Well said. Allen H is well spoken, civil, and supports his point of view with substance and reason that admits likewise reasoned disagreement.
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.