Posted on 10/03/2005 7:04:43 AM PDT by buckeyeblogger
Franck & Miers [Mark R. Levin 10/03 09:50 AM] I understand Matt's point, as he's written so eloquently about it many times. But, in truth, we already know what's going on here, and that the president, despite a magnificent farm team from which to choose a solid nominee, chose otherwise. Miers was chosen for two reasons and two reasons alone: 1. she's a she; 2. she's a long-time Bush friend. Otherwise, there's nothing to distinguish her from thousands of other lawyers. And holding a high post in the Bar, which the White House seems to be touting, is like holding a high position in any professional organization. But it reveals nothing about the nominee's judicial philosophy. There are many top officials in the Bar who I wouldn't trust to handle a fender-bender. Also, early in his term, the president singled out the Bar for its partisan agenda and excluded it from a formal role in judicial selection. The president said he would pick a candidate like Antonin Scalia or Clarence Thomas, and he did not. We all know of outstanding individuals who fit that bill, and they were once again passed over. Even David Souter had a more compelling resume that Miers.
(Excerpt) Read more at bench.nationalreview.com ...
Some of these threads are turning into the kind of "10,000 folks in New Orleans have been murdered and cannibalized inside the Superdome" nonsense that drove me nuts during the coverage of Katrina.
I am not sure what to make of your post. I would have preferred Janice Rogers Brown over any other available potential nominee on the basis of ideology and biography. I trust that you are not suggesting that I am going to anger women by asking the details of a Christian Ministry for ex-prisoners or Harriet Miers's support of it. I do not reject the possibility that I may be tone deaf at times. Please expand on what you meant. If I have given offense, I did not intend to.
Too complicated... I like it though.
It really is too bad because Mark Levin has been one of his most steadfast supporters. Hannity and Rush almost never waiver from their support of the President. It will be interesting to get their take later on.
Bush said he would pick the best qualified person, regardless of race or gender. If he had picked one of the Ediths or Janice Rogers Brown, then I could believe it. But in the case of of Miers, he lied. Plain and simple. She may turn out to be a fine jurist and please conservatives and textualists everywhere. But "the most qualified person" she is not.
Lay off the kool aid.
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
"to be nominating people along the lines of Scalia, Thomas, and Meirs."
You might want to get the spelling right. It's Miers. It remains to be seen whether she will be confirmed. I doubt it.
Democrats are vicious, but they're not stupid. I believe there is more of a chance that the Republicans block her nomination than the dems, who realize that Bush's choice could have been, for them, a helluva lot worse. If there is any Bush "strategery" involved, perhaps he will let the dems unload on her, and then have her withdraw for some "unnamed" medical problem. Or, more Machiavellian, to have her "blow" the confirmation hearings by letting it slip out that she is really a hard-core right-winger.
This is the "swing" seat. Is Harriet Miers the number one choice that Bush (who allegedly won the election) can proffer? She is, at this point, a marginally acceptable choice--one we would have been thrilled with if Presient Clinton or Carter nominated her. But, this was supposed to be Bush's opportunity to change the face of the Court (and the direction of this country) for generations to come.
I'm not interested in someone who is marginally accepatable but more easily confirmable. I want the most conservative (and reasonably young) choice available. And, if it takes the nuclear option to get a confirmation, so be it. If Bush finds that he doesn't have enough Republican support in the Senate for a Janice Rogers Brown or a Priscilla Owen, there would be time enough to choose a slightly less conservative (but more confirmable) candidate. What Bush has done, to my way of thinking, is to ask a girl to the prom whom he knows will accept, instead of asking the prettiest girl in school, and, failing that, the second prettiest, etc.
What a shocker. The only reason the stammering fool is president is because of John F'in Kerry.
I think he backed Roberts, but admitted he didn't have much to go on.
I seem to remember how that worked out.
Just like Roberts, Miers is a 'wait and see', the problem with that is if they turn out bogus we're stuck with them..and for a long time. What are this woman's qualifications to sit on the highest court in the land?
Hate to tell you.....but the troops will rally and drink the kool-aid, just as they did for Roberts. Mark my words. Not a single Republican will vote no.
Bush is not a conservative, but he is no fool. He's a smart politician. She'll be confirmed like greased lighnining.
That wouldn't surprise me at all. They were worried Bush might pick a real conservative and that would force them to take a position. This pick let's them continue their mushy ways.
I disagree. I think Bush is a stammering idiot.
Then don't ever read a transcript of the Watergate tapes. Nixon drops one about every fifteen words.
Those are Nixon's words. My quote is more or less direct, as I re-read the sections of Rhenquist's nomination shortly before the Roberts confirmation hearings.
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.