Posted on 10/03/2005 4:35:19 PM PDT by quidnunc
The facts are that Bush picked an unqualified candidate who has unimpressive acedemic and legal credentials for the job who wouldn't be on any other person's top 1000 list of potential nominees and has an unknown constitutional philosophy when there were many extremely esteemed originalist circuit court judges to choose from.
But why base an opinion on facts when you have blind faith?
Mark Levin opposes her nomination and he is as conservative as they come in his judicial philosophy. It should be added that Scalia and Thomas are not constructionists, they are originalists.
I like the fact that she is not an elitist snob. I like the fact that she didn't go to Yale and that she is not part of the ivory tower, judicial, holier-than-thou brigade. She got places not due to an Ivy League resume, but instead due to hard work and determination. Hopefully, she has the intellect to go along with that as well. Everyone has been saying that the Supreme Court has lost touch with reality
(i.e. the recent eminent domain case), so someone who is more like the average American should be a welcome addition to the mix. Cheney told Hannity she IS of the Scalia and Thomas mold. Let's hope so. In any event, we are no worse off with her than we were with O'Connor and Bush still has three more years to appoint another justice. By the looks of some of the remaining justices, it very well could happen sooner rather than later (John Paul Stevens or Ginsburg could be next).
Yeah that Stevens tripping stunt reminded me of a scene from "Naked Gun" the movie.
We are all mostly spectators at this point. None of us know anything substantial about her. There are a number of scenarios I can imagine as this plays out. If you think that the Republicans have trouble with the nomination, imagine what the dimcrats are experiencing right now!
If they try to kill the nomination for lack of experience, they also are going to be on the wrong side of the diversity question. Ginsberg is a Valley girl. My guess is that Miers is not, and that she will draw demo blood whether she is confirmed or not.
Bush is holds the cards and is dealing. He knows what the next two or three cards are....the dems don't. This whole thing is becoming fun to watch. Bush is not going to nominate another Souter, period.
Well said. Thank you.
Well, there have been facts all over these threads, but I'll repeat the few that let me rest easy tonight:
VP Cheney endorses her.
ACLJ Jay Sekulow endorses her.
President Bush nominated her.
One of her close friends says that she is an evangelical Christian.
Planned Parenthood thinks she's a bad nomination. There are plenty more facts posted in the various articles here on FR, if you don't like these, but you'll have to do your own finding.
Thank you. I think you are exactly right.
I like alot of people but I don't think they are all qualified for the SCOTUS. This is not a freakin' political appointment for cryin' out loud.
And, in addition, we sound just like the `kooky' left. Shout, scream and make unfounded accusations.
If you don't like the nominee tell your Senator to vote no. But grow up.
And if that is too hard, vote for Democrats. Your problems will be solved and you will be a happy conservative.
Bush must have stayed up late studying Zun Tsu the great military tactician of ancient China. His strategies are still taught at the war college today.
It is better to win the war without having to fight a battle. Use your enemies weakness against them and you remain strong while they grow weaker. A battle results in both sides being weakened regardless of the outcome.
There is no doubt Harriet Miers is a conservative. Bush has known and worked with her for too long to not know her core values. The Dems can't effectively attack her without over playing their hand and alienating more of the moderates in the electorate which would kill them in the mid-term elections. So, barring some unforeseen revelation, Miers is in, and Bush doesn't have to replace one of the staunch conservatives on the appeals court, conserving and area of strength.
The anger being expressed by conservatives isn't about Harriet Miers bonifides as a conservative. It is about not having a big fight in the Senate. Well, we don't need that fight. No one really knows what the fallout of such a fight would be and unexpected consequences (not necessarily good) are likely. The smart strategist keeps backing the opposition up; not into a corner where they are forced to fight for their lives, but over the edge of the table when they don't see it coming.
Unless someone can convince me of a reason why Bush would suddenly drop his convictions over what type of Justice he would appoint, this move borders on brilliant. That is if the people on his team will stop and use a little logic before they go around shooting each other in the foot.
Endorsements are not facts.
But, thanks for trying ;-)
"Judge John Roberts grabbing Steven's arm we would have had another pick today."
If Roberts were any kind of an actor and a quick thinker, he could have pretended to help Stephens, while making sure that he hit the ground hard enough to break the old hip.
As opposed to knee jerk agreement with the pick. What's the agreement based on?
Why should I support the pick? That's all anyone is asking. What evidence leads you to believe this is a good pick?
I know there are a lot of others I could easily support. Tell me why I should support this pick other than "Bush must know something we don't". That's not reassuring to me when I already see multiple "CONSERVATIVE" appointments on the bench that are big dissapointments.
Given the choice of supporting or not supporting based upon lack of knowledge and blind faith, I obviously choose NOT supporting.
If President Bush had appointed Janice Rogers Brown, you'd have Sinator Obama ( along with all the other usual suspects ) calling her "Jemima" instead of Janice.
You are right about Thomas. But Scalia would describe himself as a textualist and I think he is more of a strict constructionalist. He absolutely ignores original meaning where he thinks the text is clear. Thomas is quicker to delve into historical meaning to support his opinions, even where he believes the text is clear.
I doubt that Specter would have crossed Bush if he picked a Luttig or Jones; Specter would have risked getting run out of his chairmanship.
I doubt Bush would have lost both from Maine. So he loses Chafee and maybe 2 other Rs, he would have picked up Ds from red states. Bush didn't have to capitulate to the RINO contingency.
So is Bush nominating a conservative or someone who thinks like him? They are not the same.
The President selected someone without a paper trail, who hadn't made controversial decisions, who had no record in the conservative movement and for whom the presidential staff vouched for their conservativsm with a "trust us" response. His name was David Souter and the president was George W. Bush's father.
I'll take this opportunity to lodge some mild disagreement. Having had the opportunity to read an opinion or two in constitutional law whilst wandering through the groves of academe, I can say that they are some of the most closely reasoned documents you will ever read.
So although the Constitution is quite understandable, the interpretation of it, its application to modern situations, and the reasoning behind these matters seems decidedly more demanding than you give credit to.
And having said all that, the bottom line is that we will now wait and see. But I am not as hopeful as I wish I were, or more precisely, I really don't care to fight for her approval.
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.