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.
Brownback would make a great president!
Brownback would make a great president!
Ironically I think the left will have a subdued reaction to this nomination. Obviously they feel the need to blindly oppose anything the President suggests, but on this one, I have to say I think they are being handed victory of a sorts on a plate. Not that she ain't conservative - but who knows??
Brownback would make a great president!
Brownback would make a great president!
Brownback would make a great president!
Brownback would make a great president!
We also forget what Clarence Thomas had to go through...
but, I will say this much...I have been listening to Mark Levin tonight...and he gets really mad whenever a caller even insinuates that his might somehow turn out okay...
He says that there is NO WAY that this will be okay...and that it is just another time that Bush hasn't had the courage to do something...like vetoing a spending bill, closing the borders, forcing the dems to have to vote AGAINST the private accounts for SS....
IOW---he and Buchanan agree that this has spoiled any chance of Bush having even a successful presidency, let alone a great one...
which is SO IRONIC, considering that the reason that so many have given for him choosing a "safe" nominee, is because he wants a good "legacy" as a POTUS, unlike his father, whose legacy was fraught with failures...
Seems to me that he has accomplished the very thing that he has sought most to avoid...repeating his father's mistakes.
Nobody, they are a bunch of stinking weaklings holding the majority only because of Bush's intervention in the selection and campaign for Senators. This chest thumping nonsense about a conservative fight in the arena of ideas...where does it come from? Republicans are the ones who stand up in tears over the Bolton nomination, make their way through the Sunday talk shows to bash the President or gang up with equal numbers from the other side to control the nomination process.
And now I'm supposed to take note of one them named Brownback, the guy angling for a presidential bid?
You are sooooo cute when you are repetitive!!!
As Leo Deroucher said, "Show me a good loser, and I'll show you a loser." Losing on principle is a great excuse for do nothing losers who like to stand around with their heads up their butts feeling sorry for themselves. Leaders, like Bush, lead to wins.
I think Bush is too easily mislead. That is what is scary about this nomination.
It's asking a lot of conservatives, kind of inconsiderately so, to say "trust me with the unknown". It's one thing if he asks me to believe that Rafael Palmeiro never took steroids, it's not a life and death matter.
We need a voice, not merely a vote, on that court.
We need to make it clear to our enemies that their view of the Constitution is not only a minority view among the American public-which any leftist with an ounce of integrity will readily concede-but a fundamentally incorrect one.
Fifty years from now the Scalia model-even though far superior to the ad hoc, politically expedient Breyer approach-will have ceased to exist, not because of any inherent flaws in its reasoning, but because no one will be there to defend it.
Who says conservatives are divided?...we are being done in by RINOs and "self professed" conservatives in the Senate leadership! The Senate leadership has never really been worth anything, and the House leadership has seemed to surrender to the Big Gov spending deal.
Soon in 2006...it could be true conservative leadership. Frist is a fair-weather conservative, not an in-the-trenches, bust-their-chops, take-no-prisoners, this-is-our-time conservative.
I am yearning for true conservative leadership. I am hopeing people like Paul Weyrich and others out there know the head/heart counts in the Senate, and have a clear idea of what can happen if we get two more or so in 2006.
Have you been following his series on the Next Conservatism AFTER Bush? Good thought provoking stuff.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2005/8/30/13129.shtml
WHY IN GOD'S NAME WOULD HE MAKE A CONTROVERSIAL NOMINATION?
I was hoping he'd nominate Ann Coulter. I know she'd never get confirmed, but the hearings would have been fun. I can imagine her interrupting Biden in the middle of his half hour 'question' and saying, "Would you please shut up".
Hey!!!!!!! Once is enough already! We heard you, five times is obnoxious.
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.