Posted on 10/05/2005 10:29:24 AM PDT by new yorker 77
Stratergery, anyone?
The problem is that there is NO evidence to suggest this this.
Will is inclined to this sort of snobbery. I didn't even approve of the way he took after Jimmy Carter. The Olympian tone, I mean.
This would be the first evangelical Christian on SCOTUS in about 70 years.
A church-going woman will never be a Trojan Horse as far as the Left is concerned; nothing would raise their suspicions so quickly.
Of course, it would be against the laws of this nation to subject ANY nominee to a religious test. The libs in the Senate will only be able to use their usual anti-Christian code language in this case, lest they violate their own oaths of office.
And after all is said and done, the so-called conservatives who unloaded ammo this week need to sit down and figure out how much damage they have done to themselves and their causes with this White House. GWB still had 3+ year left in his term. He will almost certainly get another SCOTUS position to fill. He will be kingmaker for the 2008 GOP nomination. Anyone seeing a McCain/Guiliani, McCain/Rice, Guiliani/Rice ticket?
At the presser yesterday Bush must have stated every which way this woman was a conservative, pro-life, God fearing woman without using those words.
I just know conservatives will shoot themselves in the foot by making her prove her credentials so as to sink her nomination.
"If you push something hard enough, it will fall over." - Firesign Theatre
Trojan Horse? Oh brother. I think whatever you see with Judge Harriet, it's what you get.
The President could have served filet mignon - instead he brought out the scrapple.
This is probably correct.
And Miers probably will be a very social conservative vote on the Court. Which means that in Miers, Bush has probably given conservative Republicans precisely what they have pined for and worked towards for all these years.
The same is probably true of Roberts.
With these two appointments, the Supreme Court will probably be 4-4 conservative-liberal, with Kennedy as the "swing vote", and the conservatives will get their wishes.
The problem with all of that is that word "probably".
Conservative Republicans haven't fought for 32 years to get a pair of "probablies" and "wait-and-sees" out of a Republican President and a Republican Senate.
What was supposed to happen was a pair of "certainlies", which would have required nuclear war in the Senate, but which would have then established a certain outcome.
Because if even one of that string of "probablies" goes awry, the conservatives will have worked all these years to have been played like chumps by the Republican establishment. That social conservatives have to "wait and see" on this reduces them to the status of being the Republicans' "Black Bloc". And that is just not good enough for the foundational cornerstone of the party. It assumes too much discretionary power on the part of the elected leadership. Conservatives did not elect Bush to act this way. He is doing it "his way", which reposes on "probably".
He failed his base, even if the "probablies" turn out right.
She would be the first evangelical Christian put on the court since something like the 30's. That says something.... something substantial. She may very well become the conservative version of the activist left. Scalia and Thomas are conservative because a true reading of the Constitution supports it... while at least a couple on the left rule that was DESPITE the text of the constitution. Miers may end up being the right's version of an activist judge. I prefer someone who rules the right way for the right reasons... but I will settle for someone who rules the right way because she agrees with me. :-)
>>The problem is that there is NO evidence to suggest this this
Not only that, there IS evidence to suggest she will NOT be to the right of Scalia & Thomas. Harry Ried's approval for starters.
It should come as no surprsise the the President isn't an ideological purist - he never claimed to be.
No spending vetoes, and no questions of judge appointees about abortion (so he says) should prove he's not a purist.
I've never heard the President describe his vision of judicial restraint, other the mouthing catchphrases.
Considering the Senate, the President may have concluded that conservatives are still underdogs (who need stealth) instead of proven electoral winners.
You know how important loyalty is to the president. This woman is one of his most trusted. She will carry the torch that Bush held when we elected him.
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.