Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

(Vanity) One simple question about Miers (Vanity)
me | 10/10/2005 | me

Posted on 10/10/2005 7:13:24 PM PDT by birbear

I know we're all sick to death of Mier's Vanity posts. But I haven't seen this one addressed yet. Simple question. But one that will require a lot of speculation.

To be fully upfront: I'm not pleased with the Mier's nomination, but Bush is the president I helped elect, and I'll stand by him.

The question:

Why DIDN'T Bush nomiate one of the more popular, well known conservatives to be his Supreme Court nominee?

Re the question carefully.

I don't care about the reasons why he nominated Miers. And in the end, she may turn out to be the perfect justice. I'm more curious as to why Bush turned from the conventional wisdom.

He had to know it would upset the conservatives. I'm sure his advisors around him predicted this type of divisive storm around the party. So it really begs the question. Why NOT one of the other ones?


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: miers; scotus
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-76 next last
To: birbear

The other day I heard John (The Traitor) McCain carefully explain why he thought it was important that another ream of imflammatory Abu Graib photos be released to the press, even if it meant putting American soldiers in danger. This scum-bag traitor doesn't care about the lives of American soldiers and thinks it's IMPORTANT that we see yet another round of pictures that make the rest of us yawn and make the islamofascist thirsty for more American soldier blood.

And I bet all the other stinking filthy traitor scum-bag RINO's in the Senate agree with John (The Traitor) McCain.

And THAT'S what Bush is up against.

51 Republican Senators?

43 actual conservatives?

or is it 40?


21 posted on 10/10/2005 7:27:53 PM PDT by samtheman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Randy Larsen

"These very judges already know what is going on, and I believe they don't want any part of it. JMHO."

Conservative Judges don't want to be picked for Supreme Court? That's beyond rationalization. This is getting orwellian.


22 posted on 10/10/2005 7:27:53 PM PDT by Betaille ("Ms. Miers's record is one of supporting a conservative position and then abandoning it." -John Fund)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: birbear
Why DIDN'T Bush nominate one of the more popular, well known conservatives to be his Supreme Court nominee?

Because the U.S. Senate is comprised of very mean DUmbocRATs who have laid in wait to Bork anyone on that list, and weak kneed Republicans.

If that wasn't enough the weak Republicans have allowed the minority party to filibuster judges.

This is not only against the constitution, but senate decorum.

The Reps know this has been a deliberate strategy to keep conservatives out of the courts,BUT when the showdown came they BLINKED.

Good Lord they even have the President checking with a bunch of them before he nominates anyone under the guise of "advise and consent".

TOTAL BS, but it's Bush's reality, he has to deal with it.

23 posted on 10/10/2005 7:27:56 PM PDT by Mister Baredog ((Conservatives don't want judicial "litmus tests", UNLESS they supply the test that is))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: quidnunc

I have to agree with that.

It'd be hard to get someone confirmed, when the Republican Chairman of the Judiciary Committee opens the hearing with his no vote before any questions are asked. And don't think that he wouldn't do it.

We all knew that Sphincter would be a problem.


24 posted on 10/10/2005 7:28:24 PM PDT by digger48
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Cedric
"It's a master storke!

I'll bump to that.

25 posted on 10/10/2005 7:28:55 PM PDT by Spunky ("Everyone has a freedom of choice, but not of consequences.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Cedric

Master stroke???


26 posted on 10/10/2005 7:29:13 PM PDT by cynicom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: speekinout
4) As has already been mentioned but to add officially to the list:
There are more dims, RINOs and weak livered pubbies in the senate than there are conservatives and the biggest one chairs the judiciary committee.
27 posted on 10/10/2005 7:30:18 PM PDT by evad ( PC KILLS--this is just the latest example!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: birbear

Simple answer: We don't have the votes to break the inevitable filibuster.


28 posted on 10/10/2005 7:30:18 PM PDT by alnick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: quidnunc
Yeah, I read Pukin Dog's post (anti-opus, reverse-opus?) And it made a lot of sense.

For me it's come down to whether or not I believe that Bush is a spineless wimp (not wanting to challenge the Dems and RINOs) or it's (as somebody stated) a "master storke" (sic).

He's never seemed to be a spineless wimp before. But I've never equated him as the shrewedest politican, either.

My whole paradigm has been shifted with this move.
29 posted on 10/10/2005 7:31:05 PM PDT by birbear (Admit it. you clicked on the "I have already previewed" button without actually previewing the post.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Betaille

Based on the treatment Harriet Miers has received on this very forum and by certain political pundits, would you willingly put yourself through that level of sanctimonious BS? Would you put your family through it?


30 posted on 10/10/2005 7:31:07 PM PDT by jess35
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: birbear
Go along, get along. Conflict avoidance, where the only conflict he perceived was the inside the beltway one. He figures any resulting loss of conservative support is tolerable. Maybe he overestimated the mileage per gallon of "trust me."

The pick is unprincipled, IMO, because it ratifies the gang of 14 and undermines the power of the Office of the President v. the Senate.

31 posted on 10/10/2005 7:31:51 PM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: airborne
When do the hearings start?

Anyone know? The sooner we can get Miers talking, the sooner we can move forward - whether it turns out she's a dud or a star. All this idle speculation is taking a toll.

32 posted on 10/10/2005 7:33:57 PM PDT by LikeLight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: NittanyLion
He's afraid of a fight.

I don't think Bush has ever been afraid of a fight. But the sad fact of the matter is that, in this case, he doesn't have a fight to be afraid of. He can't pummel the RINOs in the Senate into submission, and there is absolutely nothing he can do to sway Democrats hell-bent on blocking any known conservative nomination.

33 posted on 10/10/2005 7:34:27 PM PDT by Mr Ramsbotham (Laws against sodomy are honored in the breech.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: birbear

I also agree that Thomas Sowell had the best take on this.


34 posted on 10/10/2005 7:34:33 PM PDT by Mount Athos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dighton

Good column by Sowell. This line: "If the President is right about Harriet Miers, she may be the best choice he could make under the circumstances." threw me though. You'd think having a majority in the senate and the house, and having a republican in the executive branch would be "better circumstances".


35 posted on 10/10/2005 7:34:45 PM PDT by birbear (Admit it. you clicked on the "I have already previewed" button without actually previewing the post.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: birbear; Randy Larsen


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1494400/posts

Owen is Out (Priscilla Owen has withdrawn her name from the process)
Townhall ^


Posted on 09/30/2005 2:31:02 PM CDT by slowhand520


Owen is out Sep 30 2005 12:42 PM

By TimChapman

According to a very reliable source close to the White House vetting process for the next nominee, Priscilla Owen has withdrawn her name from the process.

With Owen out, conservatives have lost one of the better women on the short list.





36 posted on 10/10/2005 7:36:23 PM PDT by onyx ((Vicksburg, MS) North is a direction. South is a way of life.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: birbear
When's the last time a Supreme Court judge was nominated out of popularity?

I don't think the SC is usually picked because the public knows them well or they are popular.

I think for some reason this time conservatives had a "short list" and thought the President would pick from it. The usual procedure is that it's the other way around.

37 posted on 10/10/2005 7:36:39 PM PDT by Siena Dreaming
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: birbear

My opinion why he didn't nominate a person who would cause a "fight".

Because the President is a leader and has the best interest of our Country in mind -- when he decided it better to avoid a fight, with all of the mean-spirited questions, etc., which would have taken place with some of the other persons he could have nominated.

I notice it is a trend for fellow conservatives to want to "get down and dirty" and have a real cat-fight with our liberal enemies.

Let's not forget who our REAL enemy is. Our fellow countrymen are not our real enemy. They are our political foes, but what do we gain by beating up on our countrymen.

President Bush is acting presidential, while some of us here in FR are acting no better than our political foes.


38 posted on 10/10/2005 7:36:39 PM PDT by i_dont_chat (Houston, TX)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jess35

"would you willingly put yourself through that level of sanctimonious BS? Would you put your family through it?"

That's irrelevant. The fact is, we have dozens of well qualified conservative lower court justices that are more than willing to go through hell to serve, and Bush just spat in the face of them, and all of us.


39 posted on 10/10/2005 7:36:47 PM PDT by Betaille ("Ms. Miers's record is one of supporting a conservative position and then abandoning it." -John Fund)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: birbear
Here's my theory.

Blackmun, Stevens, O'Connor, Kennedy, and Souter were all "well-known conservatives" and all jurists. One definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. From the pool of jurists, it's pretty much a crapshoot.

40 posted on 10/10/2005 7:37:08 PM PDT by Lexinom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-76 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson