Posted on 10/03/2005 4:35:19 PM PDT by quidnunc
Rush Limbaugh has found the information that Harriet Miers is an evangelical Christian, a member of a church in Dallas that most would describe as "fundamentalist." I believe that this vindicates my earlier analysis based on mistaken information about a Ministry supported by Ms. Miers.
Blue state fundamentalists tend to hate evangelicals the way that Islamists hate Jews: viscerally. It will take enormous willpower for many of them to avoid saying that one who believes in the literal word of the Bible should not be allowed a place on the Supreme Court. They played footsie with the position that a devout Catholic would be disqaualified.
To partially quote my earlier post: this is a battle the Democrat left can't win with a majority of the American public, which sees religious faith as a good thing. As far as I am concerned about the coming attacks, Dirty Harry summed up my feelings: "Go ahead — make my day."
-snip-
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Oh be quiet... if you don't want to answer my posts, then move on...
I did not answer your post because I find it utter nonsense...
"SHE IS NOT QUAILIFIED. What else is there to argue about?"
The only thing I could possibly add is QED.
This will mean that future court nominees will only have executive branch experience. Dems will nominate stealth libs and Pubbies will pick stealth conservatives. They will be inclined to kowtow to their bosses and will further politicize the bench. This is a recipe for real tyranny.
But this raised interesting questions: when we have the choice between a true conservative and a RINO with a better chance of beating a Dem whom should we vote for? Would you target Chafee and McCain for defeat in their primaries? If a POTUS candidate promises to nominate conservative judges should we conclude that that promise is just a load of hot air?
I thought you were tired. I thought you were going to bed. Sheesh.
It is a fact that George Voinovich cried and then refused to vote for Bolton.
It is a fact that McCain and Hagel cannot be depended upon.
It is a fact that Chaffee, Snowe, and Collins will not vote for a too-obviously conservative nominee.
I don't know why you are convinced that Bush could suddenly weild all of this imaginary power in the Senate. The Senate is full of cowards and egomaniacs. You can't count on them in a tough battle. That's the way it is.
Yes, maybe Lindsey Graham would have gone along. How about Richard Lugar? I can't count on him and he is my senator! He would quite likely bolt. So would DeWine and Spector. And what about Hagel?
You have an unrealistic idea of what the Senate would do. I am not willing to place so much faith in people who have already let me down.
As it is, the nomination is made. I doubt that we will see a stealth liberal revealed in the hearings, but I can always withdraw my support if that proves to be the case. I will assume that you are willing to revise your opinion, also, if further information supports her candidacy.
Every time I read this headline, I fully anticipate Rep Sheila Jackson-Lee to demand an explanation from NASA as to why they would send explosives to the red planet.
"Dems will nominate stealth libs"
This is the only point I might quibble over. If the tables were turned and the DUmmys were in the White House and they owned the Senate, I don't think they would be shy over nominating a leftist/lib. Clinton certainly didn't shy away from appointing Ginsberg an ACLU mouthpiece with a paper trail of leftist positions. But our dear Republican Senators sniffed and let her through with hardly a cross word. As I said earlier, power is power, but only if exercised. It seems our President is happy with stealth candidates with no paper trail...but only if their FOBs (Friends of Bush).
Our side sits on its hands and convinces itself the battle would have been futile, so better to have run away than to have fought a good fight. Yes, that's what you call a winning strategy...but only if you're a DEmocrat.
I am interested in people’s opinions about the confirmability of Miers versus other women discussed in these forums: JRB, Karen Williams, Corrigan, Callahan, Edith Jones, etc. I am assuming Bush felt compelled to select a female this time around.
On a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being not at a confirmable and 10 being easily confirmable, where would you place each? For example, I would rank JRB at about a 2, Edith Jones a 3, Karen Williams a 7 or 8, and Miers a 4.
What about qualifications: on a scale from 1 to 10, with 1 being not at all qualified and 10 being supremely qualified? Factored in to this ranking, I would consider quality of written work product, strength of law school, federal court experience, etc. Off the top of my head, I don’t recall that much about other women’s qualifications. I know some were concerned that Karen Williams only attended South Carolina for law school. Still I’d give Williams an 8 because of her years of experience on the Fourth Circuit.
And that is the point entirely. Her utter lack of any professional qualifications. If the Senate confirmed someone who was never a judge, whatever her politics, whatever her religion, they would be derelict in their duties.
Christians are being set up to fail in pushing a weak, unqualified candidate.
Miers a 9 not a 4 on confirmability.
Here is how I treat the RINO/Conservative quandary.
If the margin in the Senate is close (as it was in 2002) then I support the person who can best beat the democrat, because holding the majority is important for getting anything accomplished, plus the Rats are wanting to hold hearings (show trials) and I don't want to see them filling the TV with their garbage.
If the margin in the Senate is fairly comfortable, then I support the conservative over the RINO, provided the conservative will support the war on terror.
As far as judges...all I ask is that they be of good character, not legislate from the bench, and have a judicial temperment. I don't see many people posting here that would qualify on that last trait.
Miss Marple assures us that: "It is a fact that Susan Collins and other Republican senators told Bush not to send them a controversial nominee.
It is a fact that George Voinovich cried and then refused to vote for Bolton.
It is a fact that McCain and Hagel cannot be depended upon.
It is a fact that Chaffee, Snowe, and Collins will not vote for a too-obviously conservative nominee."
Cautor replies: So, it seems it is a fact that Bush rolled over in the face of this overwhelming force and cried "uncle."
Surely you can't believe that two dunces like McLame and Hagel, both of whom harbor presidential aspirations (foolish but true just the same) and our little senator from SC called Graham (a member of the gangsta of 14) couldn't have been persuaded by Bush to back his man or woman? I certainly don't buy that hogwash.
Just think, if it's true that we can only expect Bush to do what Collins, Voinovich, Snowe, Hagen, McLame, and little Lincoln Chaffee give their approval for, then the rest of his term is a total waste. But I guess in your eyes it's all so futile.
Some of them, yes; but I suspect when we actually find out about this woman, that song will change.
If a POTUS candidate promises to nominate conservative judges should we conclude that that promise is just a load of hot air?
I hope you're not referring to George Bush with that statement; so far, he's kept his word.
I think I would have picked a man. How would you rack and stack the candidates as per your qualifications?
His base is demoralized.
Some of them, yes; but I suspect when we actually find out about this woman, that song will change.
Wow, another wide-eyed optimist for Bush (WEOB). If we find out differently, it will of course be too late won't it?
If a POTUS candidate promises to nominate conservative judges should we conclude that that promise is just a load of hot air?
I hope you're not referring to George Bush with that statement; so far, he's kept his word.
And your proof for this statement is what exactly?
You seem to like jumping in without the knowledge to back up your accusations.
And your proof for this statement is what exactly?
Because all the judges he's had confirmed so far have been CONSERVATIVES; by the way, do you need to be reminded exactly WHO vetted those judges?
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.