Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Miers is the wrong pick (George Will)
Townhall ^ | October 4, 2005 | George Will

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 ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events; US: District of Columbia
KEYWORDS: bushisadummysayswill; georgewill; harrietmiers; scotus
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 521-540541-560561-580 ... 961-979 next last
To: Torie

Torie, the potus said today that she was the most qualified person for the job. You have just admitted that she's probably not. If you disagree with the potus, then how can you trust him on this pick?


541 posted on 10/04/2005 10:22:39 PM PDT by Don'tMessWithTexas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 532 | View Replies]

To: nopardons
ignores the fact that it was Reagan who gave us O'Connor,

You seem to want to ignore the fact that Democrats controlled the Senate at that time.

542 posted on 10/04/2005 10:23:06 PM PDT by itsahoot (Any country that does not control its borders, is not a country. Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 331 | View Replies]

To: Republic of Texas
I don't think blacks voted after the Civil War.

Blacks were elected to Congress after the Civil War.

543 posted on 10/04/2005 10:23:19 PM PDT by SpringheelJack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 540 | View Replies]

To: Don'tMessWithTexas

Potus was engaging in hyperbole. Oh the horror!


544 posted on 10/04/2005 10:23:30 PM PDT by Torie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 541 | View Replies]

To: SpringheelJack; JeffAtlanta
As for my statement, in 2000 Bush got about 7-8% of the black vote (working from memory here), and in 2004 6-7%. Not much, but better than previous Republicans.

The point I was after though, is that picking a solid, known Conservative would have driven the dems nuts. And their crazy rants during these hearings would have benefitted Republicans. All Bush had to do was give them the rope. Even if they vote down the first nominee, send a MORE Conservative nominee the next time. Republicans win all the way around. Jeez, where's Joshua Chaimberlain when you need him?

545 posted on 10/04/2005 10:24:19 PM PDT by Republic of Texas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 508 | View Replies]

To: MJY1288

:-)


546 posted on 10/04/2005 10:24:25 PM PDT by Cold Heat (This is not sarcasm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 537 | View Replies]

To: Killborn
The President was disturbed by CFR. He only signed it because he either had to sign it or veto the bill entirely since the Courts took away his line item veto powers.

Line item vetos apply to appropriation bills. The President should have vetoed the bill if he felt it was not Constitutional. Simple as that.

547 posted on 10/04/2005 10:24:27 PM PDT by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 476 | View Replies]

To: nopardons

I support Roberts. Now answer my questions.


548 posted on 10/04/2005 10:24:38 PM PDT by Don'tMessWithTexas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 529 | View Replies]

To: MJY1288

I agree with your description....lol

Glad I decided to read this thread. Won't waste anymore time listening to a certain radio show. But I bet there are a lot of DU'ers that are ecstatic by what happened here tonight so losing me as a listener will be taken up by 3 of them!


549 posted on 10/04/2005 10:24:41 PM PDT by Jrabbit (Kaufman County, Texas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 537 | View Replies]

To: Torie

Answer my questions.


550 posted on 10/04/2005 10:25:18 PM PDT by Don'tMessWithTexas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 544 | View Replies]

To: Chena

Yep.


551 posted on 10/04/2005 10:25:20 PM PDT by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 431 | View Replies]

To: Republic of Texas

"I don't think blacks voted after the Civil War."

You may be right - I was just going by when they passed the 15th ammendment


552 posted on 10/04/2005 10:25:26 PM PDT by gondramB (Conservatism is a positive doctrine. Reactionaryism is a negative doctrine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 540 | View Replies]

To: JeffAtlanta
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.

Isn't that like asking, "wouldn't you feel better if the new president of our corporation used to be the head of another corporation?" My answer is, "no", "not necessarily". A "newby" (for lack of a better term) isn't necessarily a bad thing. Do we need to know more about her? Absolutely. Should we damn her before we even get past the first days of even hearing about her? Absolutely NOT! Even the most sound mind with an ounce of intelligence would say that THAT would be absurd! Those who had their undies in an uproar yesterday and today are, IMHO, reactionaries. Like those on DU, like ultra-libs. They do not reason with their minds, they react with their emotions. The house is NOT on fire. Someone smelled smoke and the rumors spread like a wildfire that hadn't even begun yet. I'm done. I will wisely wait, listen and learn before I decide anything. I feel like I'm ranting....maybe I am....yep, I am. :)

553 posted on 10/04/2005 10:25:26 PM PDT by Chena (I'm not young enough to know everything)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 526 | View Replies]

To: itsahoot
You seem to want to ignore the fact that Democrats controlled the Senate at that time.

Wrong.

554 posted on 10/04/2005 10:25:26 PM PDT by SpringheelJack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 542 | View Replies]

To: Chena

I was totally duped too.

Democratic operatives are just so much smarter than the rest of us.

We should all lie face down on the sidewalks and let them put a bullet through our heads as a symbol of our gullibility and unworthiness.


555 posted on 10/04/2005 10:25:28 PM PDT by MikeHu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 530 | View Replies]

To: america-rules

Bush doesn't owe Pat anything; he just owes it to the Constitution... but since when has that mattered with him?


556 posted on 10/04/2005 10:25:28 PM PDT by streetpreacher (If at the end of the day, 100% of both sides are not angry with me, I've failed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: SpringheelJack

Now that I think about it, you are correct. Fredrick Douglas is one that comes to mind.


557 posted on 10/04/2005 10:25:39 PM PDT by Republic of Texas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 543 | View Replies]

To: TAdams8591

I can't argue with you. My feeling since this was announced has been that while this may turn out to be fine, was it really the best possible selection he could make for SCOTUS on Oct. 3, 2005? If he didn't want to pick the fight it would take to get Brown on the court, and if he was set on choosing a woman, why not Consuelo Callahan or some of the others who had been mentioned? But as I've said in this thread, I think rejection of this nomination would be a catastrophic defeat for this administration and is no guarantee that we'd get anyone better on the second go-around. Because those who think otherwise, those who think it would prod the president into naming somebody more to our liking ... I'm not ashamed to say my No. 1 choice was Brown, and if they didn't want to chance that I favored Callahan among the others ... are basically disagreeing with the premise that I expressed in the post you responded to, that this is already a weakened White House that is not likely to be strengthened in the grand scheme of things by a defeat of that magnitude, whether it pulls the base into line or not.


558 posted on 10/04/2005 10:25:45 PM PDT by GB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 400 | View Replies]

To: gondramB
Now actually I believe a democracy implies a freedom to influence elctions with spending but I dont see that as an unlimited right.

You are sloppy in your wording. I do not believe you mean that I'm free to buy votes directly.

You are also sloppy in your history. You missed a major phrase in the the First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
This normal (non crit-lit) interpretation would be that I can say anything I want in public or private, and I am free to print and distribute the same. To believe as you do, I would have to believe that the Founders had free (as in beer) printers and ink and paper, which would be required if limiting money would not also limit the printing press.

Freedom of the press means that anybody who owns or can rent a printing press is free to print and distribute whatever speech they want. And that takes money.

559 posted on 10/04/2005 10:25:47 PM PDT by slowhandluke (It's hard work to be cynical enough in this age)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 408 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
You won't have a clue who to thank, it will be George W. Bush, that you can be thanking. No, I'll be thanking blatherskites like you.

It doesn't sound like you care about conservatism at all; you just like to wear the Republican baseball cap. Like the "church lady" it is all about appearance over substance. Just what would Bush have to do to lose your support? What if Bush had nominated Bill Clinton to the high court; would you still trust him?
560 posted on 10/04/2005 10:25:49 PM PDT by ARCADIA (Abuse of power comes as no surprise)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 513 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 521-540541-560561-580 ... 961-979 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson