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 ...
Yeah he was so mad his bowtie popped.
I like Meirs more and more. She's a poke in the eye to judicial and DC elite, left and right.
I came by today to engage in some of the fun.
I think I'll get back to my stompin grounds where things are a bit more sane.
It's a wonder Bush ever got re-elected with this huge lack of trust exibited here.
It's like......."trust a man? Hell no! I want a source! Proof!"
And he just nominated her yesterday...................
Enjoyed it, but this argument is not at all productive.
The Senate will do their thing, and I think many fears will melt away, this process is only just beginning but the mistrust is not what I expected to see here.
Disturbing at best. I don't think Bush expected it either.
Nope...it's you who want the death of the GOP.
Superb post, pollyannaish. Mr. Levin (skeptic that I am, I must qualify by saying if that's really you), I agree with post #564. Above all, what I'm seeing in the response of many conservative columnists and talking heads to this nomination is a profound snobbery.
So the woman does not come from an elite Ivy League law school, and she doesn't have judicial experience on a federal appeals court. Comparatively speaking, she's a humble lawyer from Texas. Horrors!
I spent some time today reviewing short biographies of the 109 individuals who have made it onto the court since 1789. They were all lawyers, that's true. But a sizeable minority were never judges prior to going on the Supreme Court. Many had professional backgrounds roughly comparable to that of Harriet Miers. Some were elected officials, others were ambassadors or cabinet secretaries, and some -- like William Rehnquist -- were relative unknowns in private practice before their nominations. Several were either assistant U.S. attorneys general or U.S. Attorney General, a post currently filled by a former WH Counsel.
To me, it seems the main arguments against her from the conservative media elite seems to be that she isn't who they wanted for the court. She's not their pick, so she must be an awful pick. She doesn't have conservative bona fides documented in a paper trail, so some people won't get the battle royal they wanted.
Well, for months, I've been hearing a string of names from people in the elite conservative media. Yet I don't know those people. What I know about them, I learn from people like you. When all of you use your media megaphones to tell me your opinions about who should be nominated for the court, you're asking me to blindly trust you.
If I choose, instead, to trust the judgement of the President I voted for, you think me a fool. We shall see.
I don't know about that. If we were beneath him he wouldn't spar with us here. And this isn't the first time it got hot and heavy. There was a thread a few years back when folks were calling on JimRob to ban Mark.
Vigorous debate is good for the soul and all that.
Yes. And I responded that you're right. Now what? You gonna repeat yourself again?
You're welcome.
We don't
But it was stated that she was a " Souter-In-A-Skirt" and that is not correct, it is only a guess. If I were to place a bet it would be strongly against that supposition.
We elected Bush as President and I have to think that he knows her better than we do. We will know more after the hearings.
So, did the president lie or did he tell the truth? And if he lied or you're not sure, how can you trust him?
I've been thinking the same thing. I think I'll torch this computer.....but then again, what if someone "posts" to me? ROFL! Talk about "cold heat"....it's 20 degrees, yet the woodstove screams out "80 degrees". That's cold heat to me, but then again winter hasn't even arrived yet. Gonna settle down now in a cabin lit with candles, and doggies to warm the soul. Rest well...chena
2. It's not a matter of trust. I'm waiting to learn more about her. I just oppose the hysterics and the lies and the uncalled for insults.
Now answer MY question! DID YOU OR DID YOU NOT SUPPORT THE ROBERTS NOMINATION AND IF NOT, DID YOU ALSO CARRY ON LIKE A LUNATIC ABOUT THAT ONE TOO?
And 99.9% of these pundits have never held office.
Ms. Meirs has and Hannity said something to the effect of so what, that doesn't mean anything as he pontificates from his air conditioned studio.
Seems that DMWT is going to be backpeddling faster than ann coulter.
So now we have a elite conservative media? Who are the members of that elite group?
The Reagan tax cuts were pushed through by Jack Kemp. Reagan rejected the 30% cut, and they finally resolved the difference by going for a 10%, !05, 10%, which is less than the 30% Kemp-Roth called for. I loved Reagan I don't think you can really give him all the credit on this one.
I don't think so. It would have been an historic, successful nomination, and we would have won in countless ways.
We have no idea what we're winning with Harriet Miers, or if we're winning anything at all.
No, they didn't.
Only for poor people.
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.