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 ...
"If 100 such people had been asked to list 100 individuals who have given evidence of the reflectiveness and excellence requisite in a justice, Miers' name probably would not have appeared in any of the 10,000 places on those lists."
Not so: she was on Harry Reid's list!
No kiddin. We already can't watch a movie.
I'm not attacking him, but I'll repeat my .02 from a thread this morning ... does a revolt on the right which results in the defeat of this nomination, and IMHO that's where the revolt would come from as signaled by Mr. Will and others, not do irreparable damage to President Bush and pretty much put his administration into lame-duck status from here on out?
This lady is was a gun owner. It is documented she owns/ed a .45 caliber pistol for self defense.
Many conservatives consider gun control more a threat to America than abortion. This particular quality of this lady is reassuring.
"Oh boy, here we go. Another conservative joins the ranks of the leftist. Will there be any conservatives left by 08?"
That's the exact opposite of the truth. It is the opponents of Miers that are really staying true to conservative values and intellectual tradition. When "I trust him" becomes sufficient argument for any action, then conservatism will truly be lost.
that's my problem as well.
It's like saying "I give up my right to be critical and evaluate something on its merits because it was done by someone else I was told I should trust."
NEVER give away those rights and responsibilities.
you missed his update on post 12: That was sarcasm.
Oh boy, here we go. Another conservative joins the ranks of the leftist. Will there be any conservatives left by 08?
What makes you think George Will is a conservative? He is not you know.
"When "I trust him" becomes sufficient argument for any action, then conservatism will truly be lost."
Spot on.
That's the problem with the choice. Miers may end up being terrific, but this choice will damage the Conservative coalition.
Heck even PJB was on Mathews tonight and said Bush owed him a well know conservative Judge and Mathews said even if you know they'll never get approved and Pat said yes because he was owed.
The last time I checked Pat has trashed Bush every chance he gets ?
Based on the first response I would say it has already begun.
If it was a neccessity to choose a woman for "balance". With all the great, conservative women who were available it is too bad that the President resorted to cronyism for his selection. It used to be that friends of the president got cush ambassadorships, now I guess they get lifetime appointments to the highest court in the land, how sad.
Just CINOS, in the pundit class. ;^)
"In addition, the president has forfeited his right to be trusted as a custodian of the Constitution.
Mr. Will, if you truly and deeply believe this statement, I expect you to call for impeachment.
In fact- if you do believe this- you are obligated to do so.
If not- this is an outrageous statement.
Please see 12. I have a twisted sense of sarcasm. I agree with you.
Yes, you see that Constitution's soooo complicated, that sweet little old lady from Texas couldn't possibly be expected to understand it!
George Will, an elitist's elitist. It's guys like him that see all the penumbra's and emanations in there somewhere.
"I give up my right to be critical and evaluate something on its merits because it was done by someone else I was told I should trust."
How do they reconcile that with conservatism? Isn't conservatism (particularly it's judicial philosophy) all about independent reasoning and objective/critical thinking? This is not consevatism... it's blind followership. I strongly recommend that everyone watch "A Man for all Seasons" if they have never seen it, as I think it pertains to this situation.
Thank you. I'm a big supporter of the President, and this is not the name I anticipated being put forward.
I'm tired of the implication that I am a "leftist" or "soft conservative" because I'm not thrilled with this choice.
The best I can do is hold my fire until I learn more. I'm keeping an open mind.
I refuse to support this choice out of loyalty. She will stay on the Court much longer than he'll stay in the White House.
I say this as a Christian...So what? She isn't being nominated for Dean of a seminary. She is being nominated for the Supreme Court. While Godliness is virtue in all things, what is most important here is that she be a scholar and a constructionist. If all she has to offer is that she is a Christian Lawyer, then she is a bad pick.
Bush's nominees need to be constitutional scholars and constructionists first and foremost. They should be Christians as a bonus. Besides, Bush did not select her for any of the reasons you are favoring her. He selected her out of cronyism. She has been a loyal supporter and he wants to reward her. Will is correct, Bush is using the Supreme Court as a play thing.
I do not respect George W. Bush.
Why is Will not a conservative? IMHO he is. He may not be a Free Republic-type conservative, or a social conservative, but I think he's certainly conservative. Rush himself said yesterday that the conservative movement isn't monolithic, that conservatives come in all shapes and sizes and several different varieties.
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.