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 ...
When it comes to confirmabiliy, most of the men would get two points deducted just for being men. For example, a female version of Luttig might be an 8 on confirmability but he was probably only a 6 since he is a male.
Luttig is a 9 on qualifications.
Alito, 6 on confirmability, 9 on qualifications.
Don't know enough about the others to quantify.
I heard Hugh Hewitt call Harriet Miers the most qualifed, confirmable woman. I suppose he has some kind of informal equation that would factor in qualifications and confirmability. He must believe many women were not confirmable because he cannot really believe that she is more qualified that Williams, Owens, JRB, or Corrigan.
President Bush has low approval ratings right now. This doesn't particularly bother him, but it affects the Senators, many of whom are cowards.
Why is the approval rating so low? Well, the LAST time there was a controversy (Katrina) we had a whole bunch of conservative pundits and elected Republicans who, instead of defending the President, bought into the media's interpretation about his response. They couldn't stick with him on something in which he was obviously right, because they are too easily swayed by the press.
Their lack of backbone contributed directly to the drop in the President's numbers. Then, when his numbers drop, they get worried that they might not have a popular president to campaign with them, and they start "showing their independence," known in other areas as "rats leaving a perceived sinking ship."
You think McCain would have been a dependable vote? He met with Cindy Sheehan, for goodness sake! Hagel? He has a full explanation ready to go on why he can't support anyone, because he was in Viet Nam or something.
I have sat through enough Senate debates to know that we have maybe 25 Senators who are dependable. The rest are RINOS, cowards, opportunists, weasels.
That is all I have to say on the subject, except for this. RINOS are far more powerful than they should be, and it is because they are secure in their elections. It's a shame, but that is the way things are.
"When it comes to confirmabiliy, most of the men would get two points deducted just for being men."
I see, we're stuck with affirmative action regardless of qualifications. I'm beginning to understand the attitude that gave us Ms. Miers.
I think Bush needed to confront the Senate and push through the most qualified, probably Luttig, but there are others I would accept. Personally, I don't pay any attention to what Hugh Hewitt has to say, especially on something like this. I liked Owens also. I would also have been interested in seeing Bush put forward at least one of the people the gansta of 14 nixed, just to show them who's still in charge. Thank you for your views.
What is it conservatives are asking for?
To crush the Democrats, see them driven before us, and hear the lamentations of their women.
Is that too much to ask?
Clinton didn't wring his hands over nominating a left-wing extremist communist (Ginsburg).
Oh, really? How about Roger Gregory?
So Leonard Leo is infallable? I know someone else who's conservative credentials are beyond question, and he nominated O'Connor and Kennedy to the Supreme Court.
Leo has no basis for those statements.
I have been reading and listening and trying to determine whether I like this nomination by Dubya. I have concluded that Miers will be a terrific, conservative Supreme Court Associate Justice (for many reasons).
I also have a theory: I think that Bush nominated this woman of relatively unknown bona fides in order to help Ginsburg make the decision to retire sooner rather than later. But even regardless of what Ginsburg does, there is still a good possibility that Dubya will get a THIRD opportunity to fill a Supreme Court vacancy. And the odds are that that next vacancy will come from the liberal side.
With Miers, Bush appears to be throwing the Democrats the bone they demanded. (Again, I believe the Democrats are getting a lot more than they bargained for, but that's another thread.) The NEXT nomination, which will have Dubya filling a former liberal slot, is the one that will result in war - - full scale political war like nothing the nation has ever witnessed.
Summary: I think Bush may know something that the general public does not know, and I think Bush is keeping his powder dry.
What on earth are you nattering on about?
Add Wickard vs. Filburn to that list, and you've got a deal.
Many have said that Bush is not into incrementalism. I think Supreme Court nominees is an exception to that rule.
He has nominated some very conservative appeals court judges but many were subject to filibuster. The Gang of 14 killed the nuclear option and left the fight for another day.
Because Bush has been weakened politically, it was less likely he would select a nominee who might be filibustered. We can only guess what he would have done if the filibuster had been nuked.
"I also have a theory: I think that Bush nominated this woman of relatively unknown bona fides in order to help Ginsburg make the decision to retire sooner rather than later."
Man, that's a brilliant strategy. We must give Rove credit for this cunning plot. And, yet, Bush knows something the general public does not know. Fancy that. I'm sure it will be a big plus in his favor.
No. Roger Gregory's about as liberal as you can get. He couldn't even get out of committee when Clinton appointed him.
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/LAW/07/20/bush.judge/
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Senate has overwhelmingly approved the first three of President Bush's judicial nominees, including Roger Gregory, the first black judge to serve on the 4th Circuit.
Gregory was originally appointed by President Clinton in June of last year but was not given a confirmation hearing by the Republican-controlled Senate. Clinton gave Gregory a temporary recess appointment to the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in December.
Gregory then became one of Bush's first nominees, and the now Democratic-controlled Senate made Gregory the first judge to get a confirmation hearing. The senate Friday approved Gregory by a vote of 93-1.
There is plenty of vitriolic posts concerning Bush's selection for the Supreme Court. There seems to be amazing contradictions in the discourse, on the one hand, no one knows anything about her, but every pundit knows they don't like her, but they can't qualify it. There has yet to be a calm discussion on the actual qualifications or lack thereof. No discussion of her judicial philosophy only empty denials of it, yet no one seems to know what her judicial philosophy is, but that they are against it. Everyone is for anyone but her, but is was her that vetted the justices that everyone embraced. Let the facts prevail and fall where they land, and calm the nonproductive rhetoric that prevails.
The nomination is done. We will find out in due time who was right.
Say goodnight Cautor.
That's your opinion.
I understand that since you lack the capacity to process facts and form your own opinions, you must latch on to the opinions of others you admire, like Mr. Leo. What I am saying is, in this instance, he is incorrect.
You think Gregory is conservative?
He's president of the Federalist Society, what are your bona fides?
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.