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 ...
You still know nothing about him, except he is brilliant. Only time will tell if he is a great Chief.
Which ones? And got a cite?
After three years of trying to get Estrada, Janice Rogers Brown, Prescilla Owen and other highly qualified judges confirmed, as well as Bolton confirmed as the U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. ...... I think the Democrats still do
You can hold the street language. You're right, and I discussed the advise and consent role in a later post on this thread. However, while the senate can say yea or nay to the president's nominee, it is the president in whom the Constitution invests the trust and authority to choose nominees. The senate never has the proactive role, only the reactive one.
Having watched Britt Hume on Fox News tonight it is my considered opinion Ms Miers will win a great number of people over at the confirmation hearings. She is after all a tough old broad from Texas
Frederick Douglass was elected to Congress?
You must be joking. Even Dole got more of the black vote than Bush 43. So did his father, RR, Nixon, and Eisenhower. Prior to FDR, the party of Lincoln used to attract the majority of black voters, especially in the South.
You hit a nail on the head here. Frist has some pretty substantial worries of his own right now, plus the last time he showed all the backbone of the Sta-Puf marshmallow man, and he's the guy who would have to ramrod it through if the GOP tried to invoke the constitutional option on judicial nominees. Let's just say that I'm not brimming with confidence about whether a bid to invoke the constitutional option would be successful this time. We missed our chance the last time. I have my doubts whether that chance will ever come around again.
The president's numbers are down because of the constant trashing of him in the MSM and by lots of Conservatives, who want him to act as though he was a benevolent dictator.
No doubt, that would also be a super duper bit of strategy. Or maybe a rope a dope thing.
Given his willingness to put his reputation on the line, I will trust James Dobson on this one and forget the likes of George Will. Will stayed on as ABC's "token" conservative and Sunday-morning **ttboy long after it was obvious that he was considered a joke and his insights were food for mockery. Dobson has said that Miers is the real thing and I will take his word for it.
Let's see, she's changed religions, parties (she's been a Republican for only 15 years), I see no conservative credentials, she's a member of the ABA and not the FEDERALIST society, did not get along with FEDERALIST on her staff, a local Democrat attorney called her a "reasonable" conservative, and she was given the Sandra Day O'Connor award for excellence...for me, that's quite enough.
George Will is so yeasterday.. John Denver glasses are too..
Nope, I won't do it. LOL Not only that, I don't live where there are any sidewalks. Plus the fact that I'm a pistol packin' mama...har har
Well, you'll do as you see fit. But elitism has nothing to do with conservatives demanding facts. That's intelligence, not elitism. That's collecting information. Any 4th grader is required to do that. Elitism is more akin to saying trust me, and little more. If you think about it, that's a very condescending and arrogant attitude. Don't demand facts, don't inform yourself, I say it's right, so it's right. I think you have this elitism thing in the wrong order. But believe as you will.
Absolutely, do you think Roberts will do this?
And since when has THAT been a qualification? How about William Douglas, Hugo Black, Thurgood Marshall, none of whom were bright judicial lights before appointment. Or, Earl Warren, who was a political hack, wrongly assumed to be loyal? On the other hand, Judge Bork, a brilliant legal scholar and outstanding appellate judge, who left the Senate Judiciary Committee behind in the dust in a legal tour de force, was deemed unfit.
I'm undecided on this pick, but Will's head is in the clouds.
"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."
Agreed. that's why this doesn't apply to Rush Limbaugh or CNN. It's only advertising being limited. If they try to apply it to the press including blogs or boards or pundits and say they can't speak - well then that would seriously wrong and unconstitutional. At least I hope the Supreme Court would feel that way.
I never called the potus a rino, you moron. Now, Just answer my questions and quit bloviating.
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.