Posted on 10/04/2005 7:33:33 PM PDT by jdm
Edited on 10/04/2005 7:41:50 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
WASHINGTON -- Senators beginning what ought to be a protracted and exacting scrutiny of Harriet Miers should be guided by three rules. First, it is not important that she be confirmed. Second, it might be very important that she not be. Third, the presumption -- perhaps rebuttable but certainly in need of rebutting -- should be that her nomination is not a defensible exercise of presidential discretion to which senatorial deference is due.
(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...
WOW, a brilliant, powerful and very accurate critique of the President's nomination. No one has said it better.
--- They will only embrace you if you bless this nomination and implicitly trust the President. They do not realize it, but they are the true threat to conservatism.----
You sound just like a liberal. Congratulations!
I can't say that there was anything there that was actually wrong.
OK. Then I'll dump on you.
How come you didn't, in your assigned job in the Reagan administration, vet Anthony Kennedy better than you did? We wouldn't be stuck with this cipher if you had dug a little deeper, Mark.
"I think elites are people who say "trust me."
You succinctly nailed it!
Did I spell his name right?
Good post.
And you would never shine in a spelling bee.
Rehnquist was Assitant Attorney General for Legal Counsel, as was Scalia before he went to the DC Circuit. It is the most prestigious position at the Justice Department, short of attorney general and solictor, because he helps develop constitutional policy for the entire federal government. Now, you've dumped on Thomas and Rehnquist in an attempt to justify the Miers appointment. She either stands on her own two feet or she doesn't. Stop ripping our solid folks in a lame effort to defend this.
Agreed.
This nomination, for better or worse, and I'm hoping and praying for "better," is going to proceed and IMHO will be approved with very little trouble regardless of anything Mr. Will ... who I've admired for years, BTW ... or anyone here says. And for anyone who wants to stay at home in 2006 out of protest, I have nine words for you: Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
I should have put the above statement in before I said it was because she is a woman. I do believe it is because she is a woman had it been a man in the same circumstance I don't believe you would be seeing such statements. I can understand them but still doubt this would be what you would be hearing if it were a similarly situated man. But as they are saying that man would never have been the pick.
I liked the hook and the scales--too funny.
Don't you remember what happened when Bork got "BORKED"? Need a refresher course on who we got on the third try? Does the name Souter ring any bells?
"If not- this is an outrageous statement."
It's not that outrageous. Many here criticized the President for the same thing
I've been aware of and read George will for 25+ years. I've been aware of George W. Bush and voted for him 2x in 5 years. I trust George W. Bush's judgement more than I trust George Will's.
Oh, aren't you the brilliant one? So she's not a youthful beauty; that should disqualify her.
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.