..."she's a pitbull in size 6 shoes"...G.W. Bush
Posted on 10/04/2005 9:41:00 AM PDT by His Supreme Majesty
Not only saved the nation from a nasty battle, but I agree with the author that if he gets two conservative picks through with little blood, he has done more to undermine the Rats combat position that going hand to hand with them.
IOW, if you can accomplish your goals without spending your blood and treasure in battle, shouldn't you? And if at the same time, your wiley ways defeat and demoralize your opponent (the Rats), isn't that the way to go?
BFLR.....
That is just what my deepest instinct tells me will happen, and my daily nonstop prayer is focused on just such a plan!
Bush and Republicans in the Senate are behaving like losers that are in the minority in the Senate.
I think the article is well written, but I'd have to take it as gospel not to echo the valid points you make above.
The extension is that sonservative Republicans must be ill at ease in making the conservative arguements on the hottest of the issues dividing us and the left. We are showing a lack of faith in our own abilities, a lack of faith in the public being able to see the truth around the lens of the filtering media, and a lack of resolve in our ability to function as a majority.
Can we discuss the legal issues involved in state laws requiring parental notification for 13 year olds having abortions? I think we can. Can we argue original understanding as easily as we can agree that precedent has some bearing? I think we can.
If Bush feels she will vote with Scalia, I am willing to beleive him. But how many court terms will that feeling of alliegence to her President last? To the end of his term? One session, or four sessions more? Demonstrated alliegence to principles instead of faction would have made such worries unfounded.
Nah. As much as I find Clinton repulsive and bad for our country, eventually he was gone, never to return.
But, we're stuck with Souter until death do us part.
Hogwash, all the writer talks about is making the court a kinder, gentler place for its denizens.
The bottom line is Bush promised voters jurists in the mold of Scalia and Thomas. Miers isn't even close to those two.
That's why Bush was out there today asking everybody to be patient with him - BRAVO SIERRA Gdub. If you followed through on your promise I'd support your pick through a filibuster, through mudslinging, Borking, you name it. But you used solid conservative jurists to get elected, and now that you have the power to nominate, you selected a wishy-washy, middling administrator who'll come off as dumb as a box of rocks when asked tough questions about constitutional law.
I and many others will leave both Bush and Miers to twist in the wind, and deservedly so.
Tell that to the U.S. victims of the transnational islamic terrorists here and abroad. And that is but the beginning of the legacy we have had to clean up.
Good point.
Well, lets put it this way. Those are his TWO worst mistakes. ; )
..."she's a pitbull in size 6 shoes"...G.W. Bush
Seems like your source is a few years old. Here are the current (& nominated) SC Justices with their current ages.
John G. Roberts 50 (Conservative?)
John Paul Stevens 85 (Lib)
Sandra Day O'Connor 75 (Swing vote)
Ruth Bader Ginsburg 72 (Lib)
Antonin Scalia 69 (Conservative)
Anthony Kennedy 69 (Swing vote)
Stephen Breyer 67 (Lib)
David Souter 66 (Lib)
(Harriet Miers 60) (Conservative?)
Clarence Thomas 57 (Conservative)
The problem is, they don't need to be out-manuevered. Republicans hold 55 seats in the Senate, far and away more than is needed for confirmation. By not putting forward a more recognized candidate, President Bush is signaling that such a majority is insufficient, either due to filibustering Democrats or unreliable RINOs. This is a far cry from the stalwart President that re-nominated previously filibustered candidates for the appellate courts and succeeded in getting some of them confirmed. It is also arguable the rest would also have been confirmed had not Senate Republican leadership faltered at a critical time.
Nor is it a given that the President has " defus[ed] the extremely well-financed opposition which Democrat interest groups will use against any nominee." He assumes feminists will be logical enough to either support, or at least not oppose, Miers simply because she appears to conform to their alleged beliefs. Regardless of how well she fits the feminist mold, they will continue to oppose her because of the President nominating her, no matter how silly it makes them look. Liberals historically have no compunction whatsoever against blatant hypocrisy and there is no reason for them to suddenly be infused with a bout of sanity.
The Miers nomination signals not a tactical acumen, but rather the impression the President simply cannot afford or does not want a protracted battle in the Senate and that the Democrats can influence future selections merely by breathing a hint of filibuster. There is far more at stake than just getting another vote on the Court. What is at stake is ending the egregious abuse of minority power by Senate Democrats. Defanging the Democrats at this stage can leave them demoralized and fractured going into the 2008 elections, a critical time for the country. With the more liberal members of the Court nearing the end of their service, replacing them with conservatives becomes all the more imperative. Republicans need to know their President and congressional leaders will not blanch at the prospect of a Senate floor fight. At present, Republican leaders seem to want voters to cling to the fear of Democrats back in control as a safeguard against defeat rather than standing up for conservative principles even in a losing effort. Americans, especially conservatives, view a well-fought loss far more favorably than an apparent capitulation, something I think the President has forgotten.
I am sure that the votes were counted on each possible nominee before the appointment.
To put out a candidate who would placate the "base", but not get confirmed is unwise.
Forcing into the open the usual suspects, the Feminists, hard lefties is good political strategy.
We can, but we don't. More importantly, our elected leaders don't. The missed opportunity here is nothing short of devastating. Rush put it well -- it's not about the fight, it's about the opportunity to educate.
Which means, apparently, that when faced with a tough choice you just go for the closest doughnut on the tray.
Brilliant article...many thanks for posting this.
The missed opportunity here is nothing short of devastating. Rush put it well -- it's not about the fight, it's about the opportunity to educate.
That sums up my problem with the last two selections.
FREAKIN" GRRRRReat Article!!
SPOT ON, Eh Whot?
G
On paper, Souter came off as being to the right of both Thomas and Scalia; then he got on SCOTUS.
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.