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 stated, thanks. This bunch could not even get enough votes for Bolton at the UN.
If it is your position that money does not equal speech in this context, then you can write for the New York Times editorial page. If you cannot raise and spend money for the purspoe of broadcast advocacy ads 30 days before a primary election, and 60 days before a general election, that's limiting speech. Oh, and Scalia, Thomas and Rehnquist thought so, too.
If you are scared of facing down a putz like Schumer, Lord help us if you or your ilk ever had to face down a terrorist.
"Please, I asked you to provide me a definition of an originalist"
Basically it means you think the constitution does not change with the times but reflects founder's intent only.
Maybe you're regarding the process of buying political advertisements as only a spending issue.
And that's the whole deal here.
As I said, I'm glad they don't pick nuclear scientist and missile designers like they do Supreme Court Justice.
We'd be in a world of hurt.
"I never experienced such a backlash in my life. They have to dump her. She's going down."
i don't know ...were you around for Clarence Thomas?
"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?"
If brains were 3-in-1 oil, these guys wouldn't have enough to grease the dynamo in a firefly's butt.
How do you respond to the defenders of Miers who believe that the relatively recent phenomena of picking appellate justices has outlived its usefulness? Practicing attorneys such as Justice Powell and Justice White had very limited interaction with constitutional cases and were more the big firm, business lawyer type like Miers. Both of the aforementioned Justices fared quite well in their time on the Court.
I am unaware of any time in the history of the United States where the Supreme Court consisted of 9 greatest legal scholars of our time. The law is one profession where having a different background and perspective is an asset. My personal preference would have been to select someone with some legislative branch experience such as Senator Cornyn. Would the same arguments from the conservative elite
Republican Presidents picking appellate judges for Supreme Court nominations has been quite a mixed bag. Anyway, the country isn't going to hell in a handbasket because Dubya picked a transactional lawyer from SMU for the Supreme Court.
I only am aware of the the several controversial ones. I have no knowledge of the hundreds of others that sailed through the confirmation process. I suspect that neither do you. How can you say that "Bush has not disappointed in ANY of his Federal judicial appointments," when you have no knowledge of who they are and what rulings they have made?
Figures. You're willing to wait on these hundreds of Federal court appointees, but you won't give Bush the benefit of the doubt on two Supreme Court picks.
I was taking issue with your blanket endorsement of all of Bush's judicial picks, most of whom you know nothing about. GWB also appointed Brown to be in charge of FEMA and Chertoff for HMS. I consider them to be bad appointments and smack more of cronyism than anything else. Miers is another one.
If Miers appears competent and appears to have a judicial temperment, she will be confirmed, unless a smoking Roe gun is found. Her lack of ideoglical bona fides simply will not matter. It won't affect any or very few Senate votes, and might gain a few.
Purists? I take it that means you're impure? The lib phrases are pathetic. We call it conservatism. If we were purists, we would never have voted for Bush in 2004, given spending, illegal immigration, and so forth. But there is a point where you draw the line, if you are a conservative, or principled, for that matter. Where do you draw the line?
I oppose this nomination too, but would never feel the way George Will said it. That is extreme. The President is a great person, and I am sure made this nomination with good faith.
51 votes is enough.
If I remember correctly Scalia explains it at the below link. At about 45 minutes into the video he also tells who he believes we ought to pick if we want a conservative court. rtsp://video.c-span.org/project/c04/c04031405_scalia.rm
Ignore the invective. The FACT is, there is not going to be any nuclear option when it comes to SC justices. Bush and Frist no doubt discussed this, which is why he did not put Luttig or McConnell or Jones forward.
As for Rogers-Brown, Specter has said he will not vote for any of the nominees who were filibustered.
If Miers can get on the Court quickly, and start voting, I'll be happy. It makes no sense to have an 18 month marathon on "principle."
If your control of the Senate is as tentative and unstable as you say, then why don't you and your ilk tone down your attacks on purist conservatives who dare to question this nominee?
There's no speculation. We are all awaiting evidence of her judicial philosophy.
He shouldn't concede defeat beforehand, which by picking Harriet Miers, he did. Now he will only lose more political capitol for himself and the Republican Party and possibly plummet his administration into the depths of political lame duckness.
A local democrat attorney who appeared on talk radio locally, said he worked with Miers and she was a "reasonable" conservative. This is another of several red flags for me.
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.