Posted on 10/04/2005 9:23:19 PM PDT by Paloma_55
I was really, really hoping that Bush would start a big fight and pick Janice Rogers Brown for the supreme court nomination.
He didn't.
He picked a woman that he trusts and believes will represent a judicial constraint, conservative position.
I am disappointed.
But........
I am not going to trash the woman. I am not going to whine and cry that the Republican Party is doomed. I am not going to play into the hands of the Democrats who would love to see Republicans tear their own person down. {like the anti-war folks who trash our troops because they are angry about the war}
Think about it.
If the Right were successful in bringing down Miers, WHO would Bush pick as a second nominee? A conservative? or would he go leftward, knowing that he could pull Democrats over to fill in the blanks created by alienated Conservatives.
I think we should be gracious, support Miers, as the most likely member of the court to go next is Stephens, 85, and that would truly be the opportunity to reverse the leftward lean of the court.
Bush gets the pick. He did his job. He says he picked the most qualified person. While you and I might disagree...guess what??? We are not the president. He is.
Get over it. Whining, crying, stomping your feet and holding your breath till you turn blue is not only childish, but it makes Republicans look bad. It makes them look like Democrats.
Pragmatism...
Bush's poll numbers are low.
We are fighting a war in Iraq that the media has been turning into a quagmire even when we are winning.
Bush deserves some negative for his handling of Katrina.
Bush deserves some negative for his lack of fiscal control.
Given all those things, he decided that it was *safer* to nominate a candidate that *he* regards highly and take heat from the right, than go head-to-head with the Democrats on a clear conservative pick like Janice Rogers Brown.
Yes, I wish he had taken on the fight. He didn't. At this point, public flogging of him and her does us no good.
Besides, she might just turn out to be a great pick.
Your response shows that you must not place great importance of selection of Supreme Court Judges. You may have other issues that are more imortant to you. Many of us "older conservatives" who Still remember ronald reagan, have waited 20 years for this moment. One does not change the direction of the courts by hoping and wishing a nominee turns out good. You do it by picking a well known time tested nominee in the mold of Scalia and Thomas.
When Scalia and Thomas were nominated, we were pretty sure about what we were getting. They were "tested conservatives". And time has shown that they are now, what they were then, solid conservatives.
Iraq will pass, so will Katrina and so will some of the out of controll spending.
What will remain in the years to come will be the Justices who will be deciding our lives, now and in the decades to come.
As you will see, my point on this thread is to indicate the end results of trashing Conservatives and the end result you can expect if those actions are followed.
This is the thought process that will ensure that the Republican party will slip back into obscurity.
"I am NOT going to trash the president or his nominee and suffer the pragmatic consequences of that action"
hey, woah... i don't hate the president at all and never said i did... i just don't like that he calls himself a conservative, but doesn't act like a conservative should... the examples i cited are just a sample of what i consider his non-conservative policies...
how can you call yourself a conservative and claim to support the president in light of what i've cited as his non-conservative policies... i have only spoken for myself and have always done so... i only refered to "people" in terms of those that my have thought about becoming a conservative and in doing some due diligence in terms of the presidents policies have decided that he is not a conservative through his actions and therefore have decided that conservativism isn't for them afterall...
okay, i'll be more prudent next time just for you, although, i suspect you read it anyway...
But the words you posted were these.
" Whining, crying, stomping your feet and holding your breath till you turn blue is not only childish, but it makes Republicans look bad. It makes them look like Democrats"
I don't know about you but anytime you indicate that someone is looking "like Democrats". Your trashing them.
Vanities belong in Chat. They are not news.
He did. Bush.
I have never heard a large amount of DemonRats complain about anything that their leader has done. They are all in lock step behind the party 100%. Clinton getting a Lewinsky was fine with them and they attacked everyone who thought differently.
So the comparison of Democrats reaction to a group that does not toe the party line and the Republican reaction to Conservatives when we disagree with the President is a more consistent comparison.
That being said, my posts are not meant to trash anyone or support any trashing of anyone. I believe that the President can do anything he wants with his power to nominate the next SCJ. My turn to have a say in that process will come in 08 because both of my Senators are safe in 06. That gives me plenty of time to determine if he made the correct choice.
I perceive you are dissappointed. But lets' not cut our own nuts off just because we like the taste of mountain oysters. Lets pull back and gather the facts and find out what she is all about. She may be as good as Clarance Thomas.
He ought to have voted for Kerry then, or Gore. Then he would have gotten more of what he wanted.
i'm only disappointed in terms that this was the presidents first pick as an associate justice. simply saying, "trust me" doesn't cut it. I don't like the idea that she MAY BE as good as thomas, which is an implication by you as i see it that we have to wait to see if she will elevate her tenure as someone like thomas over how long a period? a year, 2 years, 10 years and why should we have to even wait that long to begin with?
the fact that she doesn't have a judicial pedigree is bothersome. the whole point of being nominated as a supreme court justice is because you have something serious to offer to that body. we don't know what she has to offer. we know the peripheral things that she is an evangelical christan, that she was not in favor for homosexual rights in texas, that she was the head of the lottery commission in texas, that she was the head of a fairly large law firm in texas.
but where are her opinions? i haven't seen them, maybe you have. see, if she had a track record of judicial experience and judicial temperance, then a lot of these questions about her would be taken off the table. the only questions that would be presented for her would have been about roe v. wade and a couple of other obscure precedent that was asked of chief justice roberts.
i've stated my disappointments and i know that a lot of people feel and think like i do. i may not be the most articulate advocate of the small samples of examples i've stated for why the president has disappointed me and why i am withdrawing my support for him because of it, but i still stand by my decision to vote for him and wish him the best of luck.
furthermore, i expected that the president would have not repeated some of the mistakes of his father, but instead he is repeating some of those very mistakes, especially domestically and i've stated some of those examples as well. instead this adminstration has taken a tone of instituting so-called conservative ideas and virtues through the process of near invisible incrementalism. i would have thought that the idea of promoting conservatism would take a more aggressive and ardent profile, but i haven't seen that either.
this is where i'm coming from. i may be wrong, but i get the feeling that i'm not.
i've never said anything about me whining about the presidents choice of associate justice... he's already made his choice and now it is up to US, the people to either support or not support that decision and in like fashion, the senate is there to advise and consent...
i simply don't support his decision for harriet miers, that's my choice, i may be proven wrong, but i don't like the obstacle course that her nomination has put up to get her there and then to wait, with possible hand wringing that she is indeed a conservative rising from her stealth nomination...
i swear to god that if i am wrong and she ends up falling in line with thomas/scallia then i will post an apology stating how wrong i was... i hope that i am wrong, i really do... you have my word on that...
And to honor his service we should all encourage Mrs. Stevens to fix him lots of juicy well-marbled steaks floating in real butter, and lots of eggs fried in flavorful Crisco, for beakfast.
I'll admit to being wrong as well should I be fulla crap.
It is beginning to look as though it all may be a moot point. If a substantial number of Republicans inform the President they that they will not vote for Miers, then I cannot see any choice for him (or others speaking for him) but to encourage her to withdraw her name.
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.