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 ...
The University of Pennsylvania's Annenburg Public Policy Center and the University of Wisconsin-Madison have documented the dramatic rise in issue advocacy. In response to these concerns, the McCain-Feingold bill banned ads within 60 days of a general election that are paid for by outside groups and identify a particular candidate.
Campaign Finance Reform WHAT’S THE ISSUE?
The President's statement on signing the bill reflects his reservations about the constitutionality of the bill. He should never have signed it.
"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."
Interesting. You make me think of a point that's being somewhat overlooked, or at least I havn't seen it discussed. There's been a great deal of talk about her political and religious background -- she's pro-life, she's born again, she was on the city council, lottery commission, etc.
None of this tells me anything about her JUDICIAL philosophy, which is the one we're supposed to care about. I want a Justice who approves constitutional legislation and strikes down unconstitutional legislation. I thought CJ Roberts had a record that indicated he was a judge along those lines. I really have no idea whether she would be, but some of the arguments in her favor that I'm seeing, like those discussed above, don't really move me.
Where are Coulter and Limbaugh from again?
From what I can tell, that is the paid advertisement part. There are restictions on buying paid advertisements within the final 60 days of federal election. Certain groups are allowed to - others are not.
Are you saying Janice Rogers Brown is not qualified to sit on the Supreme Court?
We are in a very difficult position. We cannot impress our fellow citizens, most of whom (including conservatives and Republicans) are not going to be persuaded with "trust me." Meanwhile, the left will still attack her for a variety of reasons, because they don't want any Republican on the bench. And they've been emboldened as they believe, rightly or wrongly, that they've succeeded in intimidating the president into making this kind of appointment. The president should have picked a fight with the left, not with his loyal backers. More new tone for conservatives, rather than Ted Kennedy.
Perhaps we should wait for the hearings before rendering a final judgment. I suspect Miers is marginal to incompetent, but let us wait and see. The ideological comments won't cut any mustard. If Bush wants to appoint a moderate, he will get his way. But if Bush picked an incompetent crony, then he may not. The fact of the matter is that nobody knows her views on Constitutional issues, including probably Miers herself. But I suspect she is more likely to vote to overturn Roe than Roberts is. The Dems will be probing that. Maybe you can get her tanked with a right-left coalition.
Please, I asked you to provide me a definition of an originalist. But them again you probably don't have a frickin idea what one is, do you, Horseface?
I'll speculate that you would relish nothing more than a big pissing contest between Michael Luttig and the Democrats on the Judiciary Committee.
And, if he gets voted out of committee without a recommendation because Arlen Specter votes against him because of his pro-life views, what then?
The Dems filibuster, and he's dead, just like John Bolton.
There is no stomach in the GOP Senate to invoke the nuclear option, especially since Bill Frist is one step ahead of the SEC.
One of the functions of the president is to be the leader of his party.
If you can't trust the leader of your party, that is YOUR problem, not mine.
"Read the bill. S. 25 McCain-Feingold
The University of Pennsylvania's Annenburg Public Policy Center and the University of Wisconsin-Madison have documented the dramatic rise in issue advocacy. In response to these concerns, the McCain-Feingold bill banned ads within 60 days of a general election that are paid for by outside groups and identify a particular candidate. "
I've just read the whole bloody thing and cannot find anything that limits speech, only things that limit spending. i checked both the links you suggested and they both focus on spending ,not speech.
Maybe the limits on speech are there but I don't see them.
You have shown yourself as a complete fool.
No reason to wait for the hearings to give initial impressions. And the hearings will reveal little. Remember, the so-called Ginsburg standard? Now, the Republican senators are committed to not pursuing hard-hitting questions, as that was their position with Roberts and why they cited the Ginsburg standard. The Democrats will attack, regardless of any standard. But you can already tell, from the discussion here, that there's precious little substance in terms of judicial philosophy to go on. That's a fact, and certainly worthy of comment now.
Yes, she is qualified to sit on the Court
But lets be honest ... The Dems were absolutely vicious to her in the debating process ..
I am not so sure she would have the votes to pass because of a few RINO's
I tried to make that point earlier, but was branded an idiot.
If one lone poster can tick off enough supposed Conservatives, so that they play dog in the manger/ sit home and not vote, damned "purists", then just HOW Conservative and politically savvy were they to begin with?
We ran the Senate in 1981.
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.