Whining about Miers.

[Cboldt]

So the idea is to head off Democrat opposition by going for the milquetoast first?

That has been the pattern, at least it seems so to me.

One must admit, the tactic does effectively stifle the opposition's objections.

[Mulch]

How many do you need to be convinced? For now I can come up with three good ones. Give me as much time as Bush had and I'm sure I can create a more extensive list for you. Anyway for now:
J. Michael Luttig
Sam Alito
Janice Brown

[PatriotGirl827]

You could have something there. Maybe that explains why so many libs are pleased with her nomination.

[hershey]

Good points, well said. Harriet vetted all Bush's judicial nominees, and that's extremely reassuring. (Cheney vetted Bush's original V.P. list and we did quite well there.)

[counterpunch]

Shilling for Miers

[RasterMaster]

If this is the "final straw", then they were never true to the core conservatives anyhow. They, like McCain, should be driven from the party, but I've never been one to support a "big tent" philosophy in the first place..I know it's a necessary step to succeeding with our agenda.

[Bigun]

We have no evidence that Ms. Miers respects the founders' opinions

Says who? I see ample evidence and so do a good many other folks that I deeply trust!

This appointment is the 3rd stupidest thing Bush has done. #1 is letting the deficit spiral out of control, and #2 is letting illegal immigration spiral out of control. I held my nose on the first two stupid things, not realizing that Bush was going to do a 3rd stupid thing.

1. The deficit is NOT "spiraling out of control".

2. I don't like like the fact that our immigration laws are not being enforced any better than you do but to say that it is entirely Bush's fault is pure BS. The congress has some culpability here as well!

3. I'm firmly convinced that the Miers nomination is anything but a "stupid thing"! In fact, it may well turn out to be a brilliant thing!

The worst mistake this president has made is failing to use his veto pen on that god awful McCain Feingold (campaign finance) bill!

[kenth]

For or against, this has to be one of the biggest vanity generating subjects ever.

[Cedric]

What evidence have you that any of these jurists have illustrated a Biblical world view in his/her opinions or writings?

[Allen H]

You're welcome. Thanks yourself. In the end, that's really what it comes down to. The man said he would only put in conservative strict constructionist people to be Judges on all levels, that would uphold the Constitution and what it REALLY SAYS, and not allow the court to be used as an auxillury legislative branch for out of power liberals. I firmly believe that Bush is a genuine man of God and a firm conservative with real Christian ideals. So trust and faith is what's needed now. Either we'll all be very pleased and exicted that there is a new firmly conservative majority on the Supreme Court, or we'll be betrayed by Bush on the most important issue besides terrorism, and Miers will be another suiter, legislating from the bench not upholding the specific intent and clear language of the Constitution. The latter defies logic, and the past five years of judicial appointments Bush has made. I choose to be an optimist and believe that Miers takes her faith seriously and will be a conservative Justice. I can't remember who it was this week, but I heard that before the nomination was made public, she made a call to a close friend, I think it was her Pastor, and asked them to be praying for her, but she couldn't say why. Liberals just don't do that. Most "moderates" don't even do that. That's the kind of thing that conservatives who really take their beliefs and conservative ideology do when they are being considered for something like that. There is a way unto man that seems right, but to God, its way is the path unto destruction. That is the way of the world that you do all yourself, lean only on your own understanding, and you can do anything you want with no help from some god or anyone else. To me, Harriet Miers just doesn't seem to be that kind of person. I find that encouraging, and I'll at least give Bush the benefit of the doubt, and give Miers her first session as a Justice to prove him right or wrong. If she proves to be a liberal, then I'll be the first to complain about being had once again. But until she does that, I will have faith and give her the benefit of the doubt and pray that she will be strong in her conservative convictions and that she will adjudicate that way. If more conservatives would deal with this issue in that way, the conservative majority would be stronger, and that would allow more energy to be spent on helping fight to defend Tom DeLay, the backbone of conservativism in the Housee, which IS HAPPENING, instead of wasting so much energy attacking Miers as not being conservative and elitist enough and Bush for not nominating a firebrand, putting up Miers who could be liberal which HASN'T HAPPENED. I choose to focus on what is and what most likely will be and not what might be in the worst case scenario. There will be plenty of time to be po'd if she is a lib. No need to be po'd without the benefit of real facts to substantiate it the next month or two until she is on the court and shows one way or the other what kind of Justice she will be.

[Allen H]

No, "conservatives" like you are what damages the conservative movement by forming opinions about someone you do not know, and pulling away from Bush who does know her, and attacking Miers, who has a proven track record of being a legal conservative, strong Christian, and pro-life activist. YOU hurt the conservative movement by speaking on what you THINK MAY happen, isntead of being thoughtful and having the samllest amount of faith in what most likely WILL HAPPEN. Bush knows this woman and has for years. Reagan didn't know o'conner or kennedy, Bush 41 didn't know suiter. Bush KNOWS Miers and has for MANY YEARS. Did you trust him when you voted for him or not?

[Bigun]

I'm with on this matter but it would be most helpful to my tired old eyes if you could insert a < p > here and there to break those posts up into readable paragraphs.

[Pyncho]

This is a tired argument, that is fearing that a more qualified candidate may not get confirmed. If the WH nominated Meirs not out of weakness - as Rush says - but out of such tiredness, then they should resign as a group. Like a shark, you either move forward or you're dead, and if the WH is too tired to move forward, then step aside and let some young blood in right now - resign and don't wait for the next election.

[fizziwig]

"This nomination is actually the final straw for many conservatives."

Yeah, so they leave the party and ultra lefties take over power. We saw what happened when conservatives broke up over Perot...we got Clinton for 8 long years....the next dem prez will be far worse than Clinton...he or she will be a pawn of soros and gang....good bye democracy hello communism.

Bunch of pouting crybabies....yuck!

[Checkers]

Wonderful post.

I trust the President.

[TheForceOfOne]

Nice rant.

I refuse to fall on my sword based on unfounded negative speculation, rumors, snobbery, fear mongering, etc..

Let the hearings begin, but some here will never be satisfied no matter what she does or doesn't do.

[protest1]

I am a Christian conservative and I endorse Harriet Miers.

[Allen H]

Excellent! From a tactical genius to the ears of political babes. And when your Generals (or Senators as the case may be) are a bunch of wusses, you definitely don't fight when you don't have to, if you can accomplish the same objective without the fight.

[Generic_Login_1787]

Fine, replace his name with Luttig or Owens or Clement or whoever you want. What do you think of my point?

[Allen H]

And if Bush had done that, and all the Rhinos and moderate mccainites didn't have the will to back a Janice Rogers Brown, and she or Luddig lost the nomination, would that stand on principle to pick a fight still be a great idea? That's how we got kennedy and souter in the first place remember????? The result is the important thing here, not the means by which the result is accomplished. If 20 years from now, she's considered to be a strong conservative who always found with Scalia and Thomas, isn't that what matters? Janice Rogers Brown by the way is a libertarian, and has some funny ideas about some things, so I wouldn't necessarily bank on the idea that she would be a female version of Clarence Thomas.