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 ...
Why did Bush do this knowing it would tick off his base? It seems like he has been in a real funk. Now he's blowing off those who have been his most loyal supporters. It is inexpliable. If he had picked a Luttig or JRB and the Dems filibustered, the base would have crawled over broken glass for him.
"If George sWill is against her, I'm for her. He's no conservative."
You know, it doesn't then follow that she's one either.
Oh, another giant. And what do you do? Check this out, if your lips can move fast enough to read it:
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20051005/D8D1JRI00.html
"Hell, he forfeited that right when he blithely signed the assault on the First Amendment (didn't he promise to veto it during his first campaign?). Ever since then, he's been an untrustworthy "guardian" of any of our cherished freedoms, and needs to be watched 24/7."
Which assault on the first ammendment? Do you mean campaign finance reform? That is only a first ammendment issue if you think money is speech. I think they are different although both important.
A little premature for an evaluation of the hundreds of GWB's judicial appointments. Let's wait 10 to 20 years to see how these appointments work out.
Thanks! :-)
Brutal, but right on the money.
"Oh, another giant. And what do you do?"
Spend more than 10 minutes interviewing a prospective employee, for one, especially if I'm not allowed to fire him once he's hired.
I didn't say I was ready to do that.
I just don't know anything about her.
It's the cronyism angle that bothers me. Especially in the wake of Brown and Myers. Bush seems to prize total loyalty above all else. It *is* possible to take that to extremes.
The real question - especially if Miers underwhelms in her hearings or any adverse information comes out - is what I, and people like me, will do if the nomination is in jeopardy. Or when the RSCC or RNC calls next year for money.
We might just stay home.
As you mentioned before, Bushs' lower court picks have been solid. That might give one hope about this one. But none of that changes the fact that Bush just gave a slot on the top court to his longtime personal lawyer and acolyte - tolerable, maybe, for an undersecretary position or minor ambassadorship, but for the Supreme Court? If Hillary had done this everyone here would be screaming.
Spot on !
Will pacifying the base ... which aside from this has been pretty much behind him through thick and thin ... actually give him any more capital with the people who get to vote on this, i.e. the U.S. Senate? That's the problem, we can holler until we're hoarse, but we still don't get a vote on this nomination. We can certainly say that by voting for the president, we expressed our desire as to what kind of SCOTUS justices he would appoint, we can threaten to bug out of the next election and stop contributing to the party, but it doesn't change the fact that being that this is a republic and not a democracy, he gets to pick and the Senate gets to vote.
Yes, that's what I meant - the "shut the hell up 60 days before an election" bill he happily signed.
Tyrannical Big Stupid Government is scared to death of free speech.
These piss ants who have been sucked into the cult of personality are only alienating the ones that they will need if GWB ever has another opportunity to select a truly top drawer nominee.
And you know what?
It's a open question whether federal spending would be less if they did win those positions.
There is, alas, something to be said for gridlock. I never thought I'd say that. But after watching this administration and congress spend money like a drunken sailor on shore leave for five years...
If anything can derail this trainwreck of a nomination, the argumentation put forth in this column might be it.
Well, first of all, he knew that no matter who he appointed, there would be a certain number of flunkies who would go along. Problem is, they do not represent the vast majority of the conservative movement or the Republican base. The public will not be impressed with Miers, and the public will not be persuaded by trust me. Only the brain-dead, some of whom are on display right here, will buy this. But they can meet in a small room somewhere, when they help defeat us in the next election. The president has received great support from the base, despite many reasons not to support him. But he is a good man, and his enemies are evil. So, for the most part, they were overlooked. But the judiciary was always the trip-wire. How many times have we heard that we will accept this compromise or that compromise because he's good on judges? And now we're left with Jimmy Carter's "trust me." Most of the base requires more. This isn't FEMA or an ambassadorship, or some other temporary post. It will impact our lives, and the lives of our children. So, for the thinkers among us, trust me just doesn't do it. And when we ask for something more, we get nothing more -- excpet personal attacks when we don't fall into line. Very sad.
David Frum!
You know of course that Roberts proclaimed a great deference to precedent.
Sheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeesh! Yes, you are correct; my error. My goof completely. But it amounts to the same thing... a rotten choice.
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.