Posted on 10/10/2005 7:13:24 PM PDT by birbear
True. I should have mentioned that. W has maybe 45 votes in the Senate. Never mind that there are 55 with (R) after their name - too many of them are not even close to being either Republican or Conservative.
Nominal majority, practical minority.
There are several reasons. Their names are:
Voinovich
Specter
DeWine
Snowe
. . .
In short, the senate though nominally Republican is not actually conservative and will happily melt in the face of partisan pressure. Head Democrat Reid -- who actually runs the senate-- said okay to Mier so RINOs will also say okay.
Its pretty simple.
They're looking at Oct. 31 so they can have everything done before the Thanksgiving recess.
Afraid of a fight? Come on, let's be fair, the man has put up how many judicial nominees that met a filibuster? And what about Bolton? He's not afraid of a fight, he's come to realize what kind of soldiers he has in the Senate. So what were his realistic choices? Take a chance and nominate someone from the gang of 14's list or nominate someone he believes will be a reliable conservative voice for the next 20 years?
I believe the hardworking base was "misunderestimated."
Bush is not a real conservative despite his evangelical faith. Plenty of self-identified Evangelical Christians vote Democrat.
There's a whisper campaign Miers is a lesbian. She's 60 and has never been married. There's a lawyer now at Ford who may or may not have been a long term boyfriend.
The Senate didn't approve or reject Bolton after having ample time to do so. A recess SCOTUS appointment would drive the Senate bonkers. But hey, if they won't vote, what's the President to do?
Why DIDN'T Bush nomiate one of the more popular, well known conservatives to be his Supreme Court nominee?
Because they wouldn't rule the way he wanted them to, frankly.
"If Specter is one of the main problems, then Bush created it by not campaigning for Toomey, and should be held to account for it."
Deserves repeating. Who cares about "tradition". Specter is a phony, we've got a conservative agenda to push though.
BTW, bush is doing more of the same, supporting chaffee over a more conservative for the race in RI.
Bush knows there are 55 Republicans in the Senate and most of them are whimps who can't stand up to the Democrat minority. A known conservative nominee would be filibustered by the Dem's and the Republican Senators would whimp out AGAIN!!
The fact is, we have tens of thousands of qualified citizens and the President can only choose one. I don't subscribe to the snobbery that proclaims only a trained jurist is capable of reading and comprehending a document written for farmers.
A Supreme Court nominee goes to a floor vote even if the Judiciary Committee doesn't vote in favor..
Is at ere bigger then a reglur storke?
This is my one big objection to Harriet Miers. I don't know enough about her to make a judgement yet about what kind of a justice she would be. However, there are many excellent judges who have proudly and openly stood by their conservative beliefs. They played by the rules and deserved a chance.
Cindie
He could have chosen a conservative with a track record, but as I said he was afraid of the fight that would ensue.
Because they wouldn't rule the way he wanted them to, frankly.
I think you may be right. We conservatives have assumed that George W. Bush, in his heart of hearts, is one of us. That is why we have so often been surprised and puzzled by what he has done. (Think campaign finance reform, prescription drug benefits, border issues, government spending, and so on.)
But his policy choices are those of a moderate to liberal Republican. George W. Bush is beginning to remind me of his father, or perhaps Richard Nixon.
Who exactly did you want him to nominate? Unless the gang of 14 signed off they weren't going to get through the Senate. And as that short list lengthened so would questions about how that person would "evolve" in the rarefied SCOTUS air. Going to a fight when the outcome is known isn't about courage unless you think of a suicide bomber as courageous.
1. I can't go against him, because that would divide and weaken the party.
2. Path of least resistance: I therefore have to convince myself that he really is someone I'd want to support, so that I'll feel better about myself for not going against my principles and judgment.
Maybe the other candidates turned Bush down!
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.