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 ...
Then it goes in the fireplace. I'll think of you and your posts,as I shred it and fling it into the flames. You're just lucky, that I'm not a Voodoo high priestess; but rather, just a nobody, who happens to have a radio show and wrote a book.
Do you seriously think only leftists get drunk on koolaide and think ad hominem arguments have merit?
It's about the third, possibly fourth error I've made in 7 years. Oh well......it happens. LOL
We may not survive the backlash. Primaries are to rectify problems in the GOP. It is up to us to put the best people in power and get as many people as possible to our side. Even if all of FReepdom agree to elect a Reagan rethread, it wouldn't mean squat if the people decide to send McCain to run for the Presidency.
Besides, socially conservative Democrats is definitely better than Socialist liberal Demoncr@p$. With a Big Guvmint GOP, we still have a fighting chance of putting in Small Guvmint GOPers, especially if they share the core values (strong national defense, morality and God, accountable and beneficial governing, low taxes, etc) With the Demons? No chance.
They have 60 years to sneak in liberals and socialists into the once august Democrat party. We can turn the tables on them and run the traitors right out of town.
So do you want to consign these elite conservative media types to purgatory? Who would be left of the conservative media after y'all conduct your purge.
Elitism is a belief or attitude that an elite — a selected group of persons whose personal abilities, specialized training or other attributes place them at the top of any field (see below) — are the people whose views on a matter are to be taken most seriously, or who are alone fit to govern. Thus elitism sees an elite as occupying a special position of authority or privilege in a group, set apart from the majority of people who do not match up with their abilities or attributes. Thus this selected elite is treated with favouritism.
Different justices, urgency, change of heart...
Ultimately the Courts decide what they hear or not. It doesn't matter if the issue is revisited 50 times. If the Justices say "Ok, let's hear it," it's done.
I never mentioned that nor did I claim that they did. Neither did I think it.
However, do you recall how carefully the Senators on the Judiciary approached the questioning of Anita Hill?
They had to be a little more careful with a woman than a man. And while they're NOT worried about losing votes, the members of the Judiciary, while they would have been tough on Rogers-Brown, would not want to APPEAR too mean-spirited, so they would have been less rough on her than on Clarence Thomas. Additionally, with all the attention on the hearings, she would have been able to play up her humble background. She would have been confirmed.
I read an article tonight that said that Thomas was not exactly known and some of his rulings were "Souteresque". What if everyone had listened to that?
The simple truth is, you don't know how someone is going to rule once they get up in that high, thin air. You can only count on their judicial philosophy, and Dubya is in the best position to know that.
By not waiting until you have a better understanding, you risk being the pressure behind eliminating someone who could possibly be of the calibre of Thomas and Scalia. Or, she could possibly end up being as squishy as another Kennedy. We just don't know until we listen to what she says in the hearings.
You can't even trust all of them to do the right thing, let alone fight the good fights when needed, the true Conservatives included. Many of them couldn't find 5 minutes in the day to come to the floor and shoot down the Democrats tactic to filibuster many of Bush's judicial picks.
I believe the original poster made that claim and I thought that you were agreeing. No biggie.
However, do you recall how carefully the Senators on the Judiciary approached the questioning of Anita Hill?
That is because she was a black woman that was a possible victim of sexual misconduct being questioned by white Republican senators. Being a woman had nothing do with beyond the sexual harrassment charge.
No, I think it was both.
Did you support him from the first announcement? Id so, why? There wasn't much of anything at all known about him on day 1.
Did you support him from the first announcement? Id so, why? There wasn't much of anything at all known about him on day 1.
That is just a form of gambling? Why not just invest your money by picking stocks at random and hoping that they might be the next Google? It might work out, but it would just be a matter of luck.
It is always a more sound practice to pick a known quantity.
There's so much in your post, and it's very late. So let me just respond to the above point. YOU may want someone with practical legal skills and a working knowledge of Constitutional law. Many presidents since 1789 have wanted other things in their nominees. Quite a number of Supreme Court justices had no prior judicial experience at all. Many, if not most, were not Constitutional scholars. As for a "working knowledge," what does that mean? Anyone who successfully goes through law school and passes a bar exam would have "working knowledge" not only of the U.S. Constitution, but of their state as well.
Do you know that of the 17 U.S. chief justices (including Roberts), only six had prior judicial experience on any court, let alone a federal appeals court? One of them, Roger Brooke Taney, was Secretary of the Treasury at the time he was appointed to chief justice. He served briefly as U.S. Attorney General before becoming Treasury secretary.
Another, Melville Weston Fuller, served one term in the Illinois House of Representatives before being offered the posts of Chairman of the Civil Service Commission and Solicitor General of the U.S. (a post recently held by Ted Olson). Fuller turned down both appointments. Finally he was nominated to be Chief Justice and was confirmed.
The history of the court is filled with justices who do not meet the standards being thrown around today by conservatives upset with the appointment of Harriet Miers.
If it has been a black man that the white, Republican senators were questioning, they would have been just as delicate.
You want the death of the GOP; I don't.
And Rogers-Brown would have been a first, the first Black Woman US Supreme Court Justice. She would have been confirmed.
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.