Posted on 10/04/2005 3:58:33 PM PDT by RWR8189
Senator Sam Brownback says he and other conservatives have ``a great deal of skepticism'' about Harriet Miers, President Bush's latest nominee for the Supreme Court.
The Kansas Republican is disappointed Bush did not pick a candidate with more of a track record. He had urged Bush to nominate someone who opposes the Roe vs. Wade decision legalizing abortion.
Brownback compared the nomination of Miers -- Bush's White House counsel -- to that of Supreme Court Justice David Souter. Souter was nominated to the high court by the first President Bush and was believed to be a conservative, but he later turned out to be liberal on the bench.
Brownback is a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. He will meet with Miers in his Senate office on Thursday.
You're right. The correct comparison here is to Harold Carswell.
Touché.
LOL...she is more accomplished than the majority of Americans so it is that you wanted someone more like the masses or someone even further removed?
Another prediction btw: Delay is going to jail after plea bargaining. His underlings will squeal on him cutting their own deal with Earle, and Delay will lose his legal claim that sending soft money to the RNC into one account, and having the RNC then send Texas candidates the same amount of money from an RNC hard money account, is legal (assuming in fact two accounts were used as Delay claims). We shall see.
His lawyer committed malpractice. He should have waited to file his motion bouncing the first indictment on the grounds the law was not in effect at the time, until the Statute of Limitations ran on the second, which was today. His lawyer let the cat out of the bag too early. Granted in civil cases , if it is the same set of facts, there is what is called the relation back doctrine, and the statute does not run on the newly alleged legal theory. Apparently, that rule does not obtain however in criminal proceedings. Either that, or NPR is wrong about this issue. But probably not. Earle ran madly to the newly impaneled grand jury to get the second indictment, suggesting that there is no relation back doctrine.
Look, Miers is probably a wonderful lady. As a Christian, I'd love to see a fellow Christian on the Court. Just the same, I'd love not to be the only Christian at work. But I go to work to make money, not to fellowship with others. It's beside the point if Miers is a Christian on not. Bush aspires her to be a judge, not a chaplain. I instinctively wonder if Bush is perhaps allowing it to be known that's she a Christian, to try to pacify the base.
If Brownback votes 'NO', or joins the filibuster, then it's almost a lock that I will vote for him in the 2008 primaries.
I really think, and so do others, that Bush is just exhausted of being president. I really hope not, but if it is true, then what a pity, what a waste.
This nomination must be rejected. Failing that, we will be left to hope and pray. Because we have absolutely no idea what we're getting.
I'm hoping that Brownback keeps his mouth shut after meeting with her. The Dems may figure this one out, but hopefully, it'll be too late by then.
I'm hoping Brownback tells us that Miers is unacceptable without additional information after meeting with her.
Good post.
If Bush picked her because he had no stomach for a fight, why not appoint one of those well-known moderate conservatives out there instead? Maybe Gonzalez, or Clement. Easy pick, easy confirmation. But he didn't. If he was just looking for confirmability, they'd be shoe-ins. So he must be looking for something else.
Now no matter how unsatisfactory Bush has been on a lot of issues, he's been really good on judges. Fought hard for a lot of very conservative circuit court nominees. Seems a bit odd that he'd go so out of character to pick some moderate for such an important pick, doesn't it?
The explanation that makes the most sense to me is that he picked her because she's the most conservative candidate he has who is confirmable. He knows her and her judicial views extraordinarily well because of her involvment in the process for selecting candidates. He knows where she stands, and most importantly, he knows the Dems can't prove it. They are stuck.
My issue is that she may be VERY conservative, and be absolutely perfect in that regard, but we have no idea how she will rule. If Bush wasn't drifting to the Left, I'd be more inclined to trust him. I mean, imagine that you are a senator. Do you vote to confirm - or not? What do you base your decision on? Although I have heard some people say with inside knowledge that they are convinced that she will not be a Souter, but that they refuse to say why, only that if they said it, it would absolutely destroy her chance at being confirmed, perhaps implying that she may be radically conservative???
I don't like this uncertainty. I also didn't like the uncertainty with Roberts, but his intellect and knowledge of the law was superior, and he seems to have developed a record for saying what the law says, not what he wants it to say, which is precisely what kind of justice we want (at least what I want, and the kind Bush has been promising). I'm not 100% comfortable with Roberts, I'm at 90% now, time will tell, but it's nothing like with Miers. Roberts seems much more vastly superior to Miers, it's incredible.
The next couple of months should prove fascinating. Conservatives never imagined they'd be fighting a war against Bush for the Supreme Court, I'm sure. If Bush battles to the death against the conversative base for Miers, his presidency will sustain major permanent damage. Unless there are shocking revelations, Bush's approval ratings are sure to plummet to their previous lows, and perhaps even into the 30's.
Yeah. When I read that, it stunned my beeber too! I couldn't believe one had gotten inside my head and read my thoughts.
F
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.