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 ...
I did.
"The President should have vetoed the bill if he felt it was not Constitutional. Simple as that."
Not quite. To you or me, it is that simple. But it is more than that. As long as we don't grant limited veto powers to the Pres. on legislation, he and others after him (assuming they give a d@mn about this country) will have to consider whether the bill despite constitutionality issues is worth vetoing.
Right now, we have two acts that has raised considerable ire among us precisely because of constitutionality issues. One is the ESA reform act and the other is the Child Safety Act. The ESA reform act is created to reform and curb the excesses of the ESA. But there have been indications that it might in and of itself expand the excesses of Article 7, which have been used by the envirowhackos as a bludgeon. The CSA presents similar problems, in that the thought crimes bill put in by that POS Conyers and approved by 30 idiots and traitor RINOs mar and otherwise good piece of legislation designed to end leniency towards child predators.
Now, legislators and the President will have to make difficult choices. Is it more important to reform a very dangerous act now despite the risk that certain aspects of it may get worse or should they wait until a better reform act or even a repealing comes down the line? Is protecting the lives and safety of children more important than the Constitution?
I am quite sure that many of us will emphatically answer towards the way that safeguards the Constitution best. But we are making tradeoffs. It can easily be argued that by the time real reform comes, it might be too late. It is not certain how long businesses and private property rights can withstand the assaults of the whackos, socialists, and Demons. Maybe it is better to get some reform and try to remove or minimize the bad parts later. Whereas we would argue that "Without the Constitution, what safeguards would there be for our children?" Others might counter that "But if children remain under threat from predators and perverts, what good would the Constitution be if it can't protect them?" These are indeed tough issues with no easy answers. Even if we come down solidly on one side or the other, we must consider the implications of our actions.
Am I ecstatic that he decided to sign CFR? Not in the least. But here are two things that does give me comfort.
1) He voiced his objections at all. Had this been the toon, he would try to expand it and craft it so that it would affect primarily conservatives while leaving the libs untouched.
2) He is trying to appoint Justices that will strike out the most offensive parts of this travesty and keep the good ones. Or maybe even the whole bill. In any case, he is doing what he possibly can to separate the wheat from the chaff.
And it is absolutely ludicrous to grant an all or nothing veto power to the Presidency when the Supreme Court gets to strike down parts of a law as unconstitutional as opposed to the entire thing. Chief Justice John Marshall struck down only the part that grants writs of prohibition and mandamus to the Supreme Court from the Judicial Act of 1789. Had he not have that option, he may have struck a good bill out entirely.
And if it turns out that the Courts can no longer rule section of acts as unconstitutional, again adopting the all or nothing approach, that is supremely stupid. A lot of good stuff would be thrown away because some a-hole who failed civics class but wants to be the big kahuna and have bootlcikers at his/her every beck and call shoved in some unconstitutional BS into an otherwise great piece of legislation.
To prevent more CFRs, it is important that we try to get this power to the Presidency and if need be, the Courts as well. If this "all or nothing" veto is in fact delinated in the Constitution, we should amend it ASAP.
But most, most important of all, all this won't amount to a hill of beans if one Demon gets through and slimes the highest office in the land. It wouldn't matter if we have LIVs or not, it will just veto everything that is a boon to us and America and approve of everything that is a bane to us and America. Although our leaders should always legislate as if the next President will be Hitlery (or at least do so as much as possible), we the constituents should work hard to ensure that never happens.
The democrats practically lynched Clarence Thomas it didn't hurt them one bit.
It's really too bad, that he appropriated Bob Grant's "GET OFF MY PHONE" line and never gives him the credit.
DOES THAT MAKE ME A RAVING LUNATIC? LOL
Good thing I have a dictionary, or I wouldn't know I was being insulted. Now look up the term Bellwether, that fits you.
I think it is too late for that. Hasn't CFR already passed judicial review from the SCOTUS?
To me when I saw her come into the Oval Office with President Bush I was like..."who is this? she looks like a lady named Betty who lives in my old neighborhood when I was a kid and worked bake sales, church raffles,the woman's club, and took you to the carnival when my mom couldn't."
Not the future SCOTUS Judge for the next 30 + yrs that Bush needed to pick. One of my biggest arguments besides her being a political hack friend of W's is...SHE IS TOO OLD FOR THE POSITION. He should have started with someone around 48-51 yrs old max.
Put someone who will be on there for 30 yrs at-least. I will be surprised if she makes it 10-12 yrs max...she looks tired already with her racoon eyes at age what? 61? C'mon!
Yep
I guess you missed the attacks on her by the dems during the debates .. led by Barbie Boxer ... Mary Landreiu came very close to saying she wasn't black enough .. went on a rant about how Janice Rogers Brown was no Rosa Parks
To Lazy to run an anchor pool?<(•¿•)>
I supported the Roberts nomination. He was a well qualified nominee.
Q: How many days did it take for God to create the world and were they 24 hour days?
The Donner party were survivors, they did what they had to do, and survived. Your option seems to be death for your party.
They ate their friends; they cannibalized their own. That's the point.
Brush up on your history. They ate the dead. They were already dead! They survived, it was the only way.
Nope...it's you who want the death of the GOP.
Wrong again. Going for a record?
Looking at the spending, the borders etc, I would consider what is and has been going on, as self inflicted suicide.
You always give me a good laugh though. Good night......
Yes you did, you moron and I answered your damned query.
I oppose blocking a judicial nominee because of their religion...
but I also oppose choosing a nominee because of their religion.
It is becoming clear that is the reason Miers was chosen.
Oops! Repubs had Senate at that time, short lived though it was.
I have just a simple question: Do YOU believe that Harriet is the MOST qualified person for the Court? If you really believe that I will respect that answer.
So far "Miers derangement syndrome" doesn't show up on Google, but it sure is showing up here on Free Republic.
Lots of Conservatives have NOT defended the president's handling of Katrina. You can see that here, all over FR, if you have the time to check. And since you are so AWARE of what "purist" really means, then look at the posts by these "purists"m who trashed the president for weeks, right here on FR, over his handling of Katrina; silly.
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.