Posted on 10/04/2005 8:08:33 AM PDT by HonestConservative
But her qualifications for the Supreme Court are nonexistent.
And you know this how? She hasn't published anything to suggest that she is an originalist.
W is a conservative. We trust W. W says she is a good pick. Therefore she is a good pick. That is the basic idea anyway.
It is just this attitude which has brought us here today with a clearly divided party all staking out postions in a grab for power and influence. We Conservatives have gained much ground, not everything we wanted to be sure, but much more than could have been expected with the narrow 2000 victory which was only won with some degree of moderate support. Less than 2 years ago we had a closer win than I expected with another liberal, lying-traitor opponent. Throwing your vote out there only emboldens the RINOS seeking support for who knows what policies. Have we forgotten the 7+ defectors who played into the RATS hands on filabuster issue? They must be salavating at the potential of libertarian defections. If we do not ride the Republican train to educate the populace on conservative issues, we will never win the victory on immigration or government spending in my lifetime. I AM SURE OF THIS....
The way to teach the populace about conservative constitutional values, is not to be submissive to the left.
When Bush gave his speech after Katrina and CONCEDED that the reason that the poor of New Orleans were in that predicament was because of RACISM... that was the beginning of the end for me.
Now that he's picked a nominee that HARRY REID was pushing for the first time around fills me with no confidence whatsoever.
There's still time before the '06 election. The Repbulicans still have time to show me that they'll stick to their guns instead of squandering their opportunities.
Not much political capital there after his performance for the last six months.
"This is not to disparage Harriet Miers. From all accounts, she is a gracious lady who has spent decades in the law, and served ably as Bush's lawyer in Texas and, for a year, as White House counsel. "
Pat Pat Pat Pat .... stop whinning. Pat devides conservatives more than any other conservative I know of. If he could mount a better Presidental campain, he would have run in 2004, split the conservative vote, and he would be B$&ching about President Kerry's (God Forbid) Supreme Court Pick.
Aren't you using the same tactics and litmus test of the Dems?
President Bush's philosophy on the judiciary should be well known by now. I believe him when he says she has the same philosophy that he has and will not change that philosophy. If you can give me any reason that I should believe that he has changed his philosophy please do so.
Actually Pat, she has ONE qualification.
The guy that wants her on the Court, actually got ELECTED to serve in the White House.
Well, Meirs might turn out to be a great pick. We don't know. What we do know is the following:
1. Luttig, Alito, McConnel, all would have been great picks.
2. People in all areas of society, government, corporate, etc. often use bad judgement when dealing with the hiring, firing, and promotion of friends. That is why in most parts of society it is considered a no-no to promote personal friends.
Typical political response applied from both sides of the aisle.
Too many Republicans and to few conservatives, one being a political party that requires strict obedience and the other being a lifestyle that requires adherence to principals.
Drink up Bush bots.
This is where pat is wrong. The abortion issue emphatically does not unite R's and conservatives. In fact, the interests of the party and getting and keeping power are directly opposed to the interests of the conservatives.
The folks running the Republican party secretly love the current situation with Roe v. Wade. They cannot change Roe but they can SAY they want to change it and regularly pass bills that they know the courts will strike down. As long as this persists, the conservatives dutifully turn out to walk precincts and man phone lines in the hopes of getting a good supreme court.
Controlling the conservatives in this manner has been a key element of holding together the R coalition. (The coalition will not hold together if the conservatives get their way on abortion because the RINO's will bolt--so one side has to lose the abortion issue to keep the R's together and that is the conservatives.)
In any event, Roe keeps the conservatives in the coalition and it keeps the phones manned; but the R's don't actually have to do anything about abortion because the Supreme Court controls the process.
If Roe were overturned, a lot of that juice is gone and the coalition shatters. The one issue voters change from allies of the R's to folks who actually want real anti-abortion laws passed in real state legislatures. Suddenly, the R's who have been posturing all these years will have to put their money where their mouth is or lose conservative support. But if they garner the conservative support, a lot of RINOs will bolt to the rats.
R's in high places know this. So is it any suprise that, even though R's have appointed 7 of the 9 justices on the Court, Roe v. Wade still stands?
"Then what happened to the whole, "I have political capital - I'm going to use it," thing?"
I'd love to know the answer to that question.
I don't understand how a President can fight so hard for freedom overseas and roll over when it's threatened at home. He's afraid of a confrontation for some reason, and that's very disappointing.
Republicans have put much time and energy subsequent to the Nixon era in recapturing control of the federal government. We gave President Bush a pass in his first term due to Jumpin' Jim Jeffords cowardly defection. But conservatives stood by their President and gave him a decisive majority in Congress.
Then the wheels started to come off. Admittedly, President Bush received little if any help from Republican Senators who appeared to lack the spine necessary to confront the Democrats and their parliamentary trickery. Nevertheless, the President seemed reluctant to himself confront Democrats on behalf of his own nominees, and unable to reel in such rebels as McCain.
Despite all appearances, there could be some logic to the President's choice. Having secured justices such as Priscilla Owen on the appellate level, the President may be wanting to preclude not only a Senate floor fight regarding a Supreme Court nominee from this group, but also a contentious fight for a replacement in the appeals court, which history has already proven too ephemeral for public attention and too easily filibustered.
Yet even this explanation still strikes me as a response of fear and capitulation rather than grand strategy. On the whole, President Bush appears to be running from an issue for which he was elected. This does not bode well for the future of Republican control, as many disaffected voters will no longer be swayed by the fear of the Democrats regaining majorities. Instead, they will be looking for candidates who will push the conservative agenda without hesitation, demanding unequivocal statements when campaigning and unequivocal action once elected. But perhaps another season out of power is just what Congressional Republicans need to remind them who they actually represent.
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.