Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: JWojack
Just consider this for a second.

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.

110 posted on 10/04/2005 8:02:49 PM PDT by XJarhead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies ]


To: XJarhead
I do agree that Bush has been great with judges and getting people confirmed (like John Bolton, for a recent example). Monday morning was a "WHAT IS THIS???" kind of moment. Total disbelief.

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.

111 posted on 10/04/2005 8:24:34 PM PDT by JWojack (Contact your senators and DEMAND that they support a bipartisan filibuster of Harriet Miers!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson