Posted on 10/03/2005 4:06:25 AM PDT by johnmecainrino
Harriet Miers
You are right. It is so hard to separate your spiritual beliefs from your day to day walk. I am wondering if some of the Dems were hasty in their assumptions about her. It will be interesting to see how all of this will play out the next few days. If we find out more and more that she is a Christian conservative, Reid and the others will have egg on their faces. It will be hard to for them to come out against her when they have already endorsed her. I would really relish that.
"So even though it may be early and they may be wrong they certainly have the right to be upset considering the track records of politicians from both parties over the last forty years or so.
I pray for our country's sake and our children's sake we are wrong in our fears."
As do I. Although some may understandably feel initially angry and betrayed, I really do caution everyone to take a deep breath and step back - try to be objective and put themselves in the President's shoes. He needs to make very strategic moves here, and consider who is going to be fighting the confirmation battle for him in the Senate. I am actually more concerned, for example, that Arlen Specter is the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee rather than Orrin Hatch (but then I found out that Hatch actually suggested Ginsburg to Clinton!!!). Plus we have people like Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, etc. Bush needed to figure out who would be conservative AND would make it through confirmation, considering the slash-and-burn tactics of the Left. We also need to consider the alternative. If we fall apart, we are CERTAIN to lose the ground we have gained! Now is not the time to go "all wobbly".
I am choosing to trust the President. I, too, am hoping and praying I am right.
I never said that I believed the nomination fulfills the adminstrations campaign promise. See post #2747 for my opinion on Miers.
We have no clue how that turned out. He's been in the SCOTUS for exactly one day. Bush promised 2 Scalia's and we have one confirmed "trust me" and another nominated "trust me". There were plenty of sure things available, but he did not choose them.
At best, this indicates the nominee might be a bit slow on the uptake - how could you have been awake and missed the conservative revolution for that long?
You have been put into your place in front of all here.
Into your place.
Your place.
That has got to suck.
Are you aware that you're coming across as a creepy psycho control freak? It's not a particularly persuasive debating style.
Based on Roberts' past performance on the DC Appeals court and his answers at his confirmation hearing, I'm optimistic.
1) Name every spending bill that President Bush has vetoed.
2) Describe every effective measure that he has taken to stop the surge of illegal criminals into America.
3) Describe every positive measure that he has taken to support the gun-owners that make up a vast majority of his base.
4) Explain why he has done nothing to expose the corruption in the UN and tried to stop it.
5) Explain why he and his father have their noses so far up a disbarred, adultering murder named Bill Clinton's ass.
You know just because someone disagrees with your opinion does not mean you have to be caustic or rude. FR is a good place to go to get opinions and share them, you don't need to be hateful.
LOL. Sad but at times true.
Rehnquist was saddled with a strong, too-often dissenting female, a consummate compromiser compromised by Californization.
Roberts is given what will turn out to be a compliant, not-too-often dissenting female, one who has lived a life of caution that has cultivated some satisfaction in conservative attitudes.
The potential now exists for Scalia to take as many 5-4 wins as he cares to carefully craft.
Smells like strategery to me.
Yeah, that is me.
Why don't you have me banned for asking questions that people from ohio can't answer.
Or maybe answer the questions ....... or shut up?
Actually if you had been following this heated exchange, you would see that one party began name calling as soon as Eaker criticized the President. He was very restrained in his posts and has asked legitimate but pointed questions. His only vitriol has been directed at the President, not at other freepers. There are many people here - in fact I would wager the majority on this thread at least - who share his views of this pick. Unless the other party is George W. Bush himself, which I doubt, it is completely inappropriate to hurl back an insult to someone who posts here criticizing the President.
Pure genius ah tell yea. Just political genius.
Source that! It NEEDS to be a headline in itself.
ICC?
This woman needs to go down very, very hard in committee.
Exactly.
I knew that.
That is why I came her several years before you did. A bunch in fact.
Ask ohio to answer the questions.
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.