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 ...
Well excussssssssssssssssssssse me
Exactly, Bush has pulled a Dilbert. He need the criticism to straighten him out.
Gracias. Folks here seem to think that being confirmed as an associate justice is like being elected a junior senator from North Dakota. They do more than case a vote. They need to be able to persuade their colleagues on the Court. They need to write opinions. It seems that so many have bought into the politicization of the Court, they don't know what the Court is supposed to be.
"Why don't you take a nice long draw on that bong sitting next to your keyboard and tell yourself one more time that Harriet is the most qualified nominee for the court before you go to bed."
She's got a better paper trail on RKBA than anyone on the conservative front bench. That qualifies her.
He had a solid record on the 9th circuit, as I recall, or Ronald Reagan would not have nominated him, Ed Meese would not have recommended him, and Jesse Helms would not have voted for him. Can't control what any of them do once they're on the court, but the goal is to try to find evidence of their philosophy. The evidence was good, but he went over to the dark side. It happens even to some who suprise you. But that's not an argument for trust me. It's an argument for trying harder. Which is why your obsession with this is mindless, other than to attack me. But that accomplishes nothing. Hence, you are and remain a putz.
But George simply chose not to address the unstated, critical question he implicitly raises.
George, I would also very much like to see well-known giant of strict conservative legal thinking, the current equivalent of a Judge Bork, on the court.
But George, show me the 60 votes, today, for an open, established Scalia clone.
Tell me very specifically who those 60 votes are, and what due diligence you have done to determine how they would vote.
I don’t wan’t to hear platitudes like “well, uh, Bush just needs to exercise leadership!”
And I don’t wan’t to hear “Well, if only we had a better guy than Frist” or “If only we had Toomey instead of Specter.”
Talk to me in terms of the here and now.
And don’t tell me “oh, the Gang of 14 agreement! Didn’t they promise, so sincerely, to put all ideology aside unless in extraordinary circumstances?”
Don’t talk nonsense to me, talk hard-headed realism.
Or, instead, show me the 50 Senate votes for the “nuclear option.”
Keep in mind, having just been through the battles over Pickering, Rogers Brown, Owens, etc., the speculation preceding the Roberts nomination, the selection of Roberts and the Roberts confirmation process, that the White House and the Senate leadership have done extensive due diligence on exactly where each key senator stands, both in terms of what kind of nominee they will confirm and whether they are willing to go nuclear.
But George, if you have better information, then please clue me in.
If you can demonstrate to me that Bush and Frist are just plain wrong, that 60 votes for an established Scalia clone are there for the taking, then I will join the chorus of Bush critics on this nomination.
But if you do not have a realistic basis with which to dispute Bush and Frist on this, then your choices are three:
1. Nominate the established Scalia clone, and face defeat, in what would probably be a protacted and, with the MSM spinning it for all it’s worth, a “humiliating” defeat. For those who say that it would not be a big deal politically to suffer a defeat like that and might even be a good thing, would fire up the base for ’06, well, that’s your opinion; I think you could not be more wrong.
2. Nominate someone with an established record that can hold the RINOS and attract enough Rats to get to 60. Such a person would probably not even be as conservative as O’Connor, and would probably actually move the Court leftward.
3. Nominate a stealth candidate. In this case, the most important factor is that the WH knows this person very well and very directly (no Souters on the recommendation of a friend of a friend, please) and the Rats do not.
Bush chose No. 3.
Your choice?
I agree with George. I will not be voting Republican in 08. What's the point? How in the world could he say she's the most qualified person he could find...
No, I'm just trying to fit in. ; )
President Bush says she is, Miers says she is. Do you think one or both of them are lying?
No you idiot. You are doing such a great job of alienating the good people who worked their butts off for Republicans and object to this nominee that they may just sit out the next election.
They don't care. They think they're defending the president. They don't care about Miers, except that Bush nominated her. He could nominate an activist and they'd say trust us.
Really? The political speech limitations is the scary part of the bill. If the FEC chose to, they could go after conservative talk show hosts such as Rush and charge that they are actually just political advertisements and shut them down 60 days before an election.
You really don't like being reminded of your f***ups, do you?
What loyal supporters? The forums here have more Bush bashing than CNN.
What did you disagree with in the editorial?
Here's another line of reasoning that I was toying with today, regarding her unorthodox resume for a SCOTUS nominee:
One of her qualifications that the White House is puffing, in lieu of judicial experience, is her service on a "city council". The radio host asked what that had to do with being qualified for the Supreme Court.
My thought on that is: given her "city council" service - how would she have ruled on the Kelo vs. New London eminent domain case that was so egregious that it energized conservatives this year?
I have no idea. But if I had to guess, and we do have to guess because she has no "paper trail", I would guess that most city council like eminent domain power and she would have voted the way the majority did vote. The wrong way.
Having to play that guessing game is my clue that she was the wrong choice.
This is partly a sectional thing. The "intellectuals" are from the northeas, from the "Boswash" strip.
"No you idiot. You are doing such a great job of alienating the good people who worked their butts off for Republicans and object to this nominee that they may just sit out the next election."
And y'all will hold your breath until y'all turn blue, no doubt.
Don't mean to pour a bit of cold water on this argument, but if anyone thinks Ginsberg, Souter, etc are persuadeable (is that a word?), I've got some bad news. Won't happen.
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.