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 ...
So you think the trolls are going ballistic on this thread "trying to bring dissent and disgrace to President Bush and fellow Republicans"?
You're probably right, but we wouldn't want them to suspect we see right through them, would we? They are so clever.
That would make a fine tag line.
Don't lecture me about FR as if you're the house historian. I've been around here longer than you. You're just a nitwit with a keyboard, based on your posts tonight. I know what you meant by purist, and addresed it. It was stupid. "Trust me." By you're very slow, I am very tired ... night.
Goerge Will says no ? Now I'm 100% sure she is the right pick.
This sailor is insulted by the comparison!
I've only spent my own money getting drunk.
Wouldn't you feel better if you she had been a judge and actually had some decisions to review? That's all we are asking.
"If Miers is as conservative as you believe, then why will she not be fillibustered?
She may be filibustered. But I doubt it."
The odds go down because she is a woman and because she has so little public track record.
The Donner party were survivors, they did what they had to do, and survived. Your option seems to be death for your party.
Just WHERE did I "put you down"? I'm not the one calling other posters "horseface" and piss ant. YOU DID THAT.
And if you and your ilk can't have a civil debate, then perhaps you should be treated as you treat others, with nothing but contempt, insults, impugnations, and disdain.
You aren't just "questioning" this nomination...you're foaming at the mouth and throwing hissy fits!
I haven't said that I am for or against Miers. What I am against, is the fulminating hysterics.
Were you also against the Roberts nomination?
Oh yes, so very clever. Squeaking shoes, slamming door, tripping over ideals.....yep, they are verily sneakily coming out of the woodwork in the form of termites. shhhhhh, don't tell anyone..... Well call the Orkin man ;)
Nope but keep posting with specificity and it will be. <(•¿•)>
The most qualified person for the court is rarely nominated or confirmed. Roberts was the exception. Political calculations come into play, and for this one, we just had to have a woman, and the other women mentioned might not have made it. I don't like this quasi quota system for the court. There is a much deeper bench of while males for the court on the conservative side of the ledger, with unimpeachable credentials, much deeper. That is just the way it is at the moment. It might change in a decade, but a decade hence is not now.
No, I arrived at that conclusion myself watching his performance on TV. As someone who was a USG bureaucrat myself for over 36 years, I can recognize incompetent political appointees when I see them.
Did you know he managed 150 separate disasters for FEMA in his term, including four simultaneous hurricane relief efforts? They all looked like the prelude and postlude to Rita in Texas. IOW, smooth and seamless.
I watched the entire 6 hours plus of Brown's testimony and heard him extoll his on-the-job expertise. Rubbish. It is the career personnel who run the show with the political appointee providing some leadership and political saavy. Brown did not have the expertise, experience, and requisite leadership ability to handle the job. He was a lawyer put in charge of a large organization similar to Chertoff. They were more interested in getting Blanco to sign an agreement than taking action. It would be far better to place a retired military flag officer in charge of FEMA and DHS. We needed someone with operational effectiveness and
Louisiana is a separate breed when it comes to incompetence. Brown ran smack dab into the Nagin-Blanco maelstrom, and was ground up in it, courtesy of Shep Smith and Anderson Cooper. Michael Brown was a scapegoat for Louisiana decadence.
I place the lion's share of the blame on Blanco and Nagin. However, Brown should have reacted faster to the situation at the Convention Center and Superdome, for PR purposes if anything else. Bush realized that the federal response was not error free and took responsibility for it. The Anderson Coopers and Shep Smiths should not have been allowed to drive the images and distort the facts. They filled the vacuum left by the Feds.
See that part confuses me. If she comes across as a conservative in the hearings, why would she be any less likely to be fillibustered than a nominee that has a proven conservative record?
1. Do you agree with the President that Harriet was the most qualified person for this seat on the Court?
2. If your answer to question #1 is no, then on how can you trust him?
3. If your answer to # 1 is yes, please explain what makes her the most qualified person for the job?
Did nopardons attack you too?
Mark you are the North end of a South bound Mule
Good Night
"Bush dared nominate someone Will doesn't think is "good enough". So this article twists and turns 99 ways to beg the republican senate to dump the president's nominee. this article is horse manure and it's not the first time by Will."
You're the one who's twisting the facts; Will is simply saying that the Senate has a responsibility to assure that whomever is nominated to the highest court of the land should be of a caliber of intellect and experience to contribute meaningfully. I hope the elected members of the U.S. Senate believe that to be true regardless of who the nomination is, or who makes the nomination.
Good point. As far as we know, she's 50 years old and has spent the last twenty years analyzing the Constitution, right?
I don't think blacks voted after the Civil War.
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.