Posted on 10/05/2005 12:57:14 PM PDT by jmaroneps37
Mark Levin and Dick morris have just debated the nomination on Sean hannity's show. After listening to Levin, I am more convinced that Miers is the one I want. Levin talks a good game about not wanting judges who will re write the Constitution. We we have a person that all indications show will be an orginalist. I think Levin is more interested in a fight than actually getting the judical "No" machine we need in the Suprems Court. I think Miers will be a solid money in the bank conservative vote. Since Supreme Court Judges only get one vote, how much more could Miers do? Maybe smack Ginsberg in the chops?
Even his book signings required the presence of Hannity.
I believe it was Hannity who got him the radio show on WABC.
He was a Supreme Court Clerk for two terms--for a very fine justice (Henry Jackson). It's useful background.
I am not jazzed about the party. They will say give us more senators. Even if we got 60 Republican senators, they would say we needed more in order to get anything done. The problem is not the number of senators, the problem is leadership. Democratic leaders were able to beat their caucus into submission. GOP leaders are spineless.
"Those who live in glass houses....." even 20 year old glass houses.
I am a member of the public and I support her.
Rodney, that will depend on who asks what question.
We are fixing to see the biggest pissing contest since Bork came before The Committee. You will get to see the Demos go into a complete melt down. Turn on your recorder and so you can play it back over and over.
I trust our President. He made the statement that she was a pit bull in size 6 shoes. If the people on this forum have not learned how President Bush works yet, shame on you!
The Warren court was a results-oriented court. They wanted an end to segregration and racial discrimination--in and of itself a good thing. The problem is that they were prepared to do great violence to the Constitution to get it----and the results are with us to this day, not just the failure of liberal programs, but distorted "Constitutional principles" that are now embedded into legal interpretation. Sorry, but "results-oreineted" conservatives are likely to do similar damage. We'll have some short-term victories, but in the end lose the great guardian of American freedom.
Great post, wish I could have said half as well.
But part of the strategic calculation must be that Bush is not in real good position to ask for or expect blind trust from the base at this point. In fact, since Katrina, the base has been looking to send Bush a message, and by making such a highly personal 'trust me' pick, pick Dubya has effectively taped a 'kick-me' sign on his pants. Just when many of his scorned supporters have been shining up the boot toe. Bad strategery there.
Since the potus is predisposed to only pick people whose heart he really knows for the Court, he's going to nominate his mother when Stevens dies.
I may have mistated.....results orientated in the respect that the new nominee votes concurrently with Thomas and Scalia. not results orientated as in activist in pursuit of conservative ideals at the expense of the constitutuion.
"What too many conservatives want is a bellicose culture warrior on the Supreme Court who will issue ringing opinions proclaiming conservative philosophy."
Give us an example.
Many conservatives berated the choice of Roberts, but in his very first case he is aggressively opposing Oregon's assisted suicide law. He showed remarkable leadership today as Chief Justice.
Based on what I'm reading, I don't think that is what she is going to be. She'll be an originalist. She's going to argue for a reading of the constitution, as a contract (via her background in Contract Law).
She won't be a mindless yes vote for Conservatives and she won't be another Souter.
For once, can't we be happy for a win? Do we always have to expect a letter bomb in every Christmas gift?
How many times do you think that Bush has asked Harriet about her judicial philosophy over the last 14 years? He's only been president for the last 5. I just have a hard time picturing W asking her about that.
Give us an example.
David Frum
=============================================
What indications are you talking about, please be specific as most of us are waiting to see anything at all concrete on the subject.
I think President Bush was looking for a simple watchdog...to serve as a swing vote on behalf of Christian conservatives all over the nation.
He avoided a long drawn out filibuster by being pragmatic.
LOL! Levin responded to your accusations in this thread. You owe him an apology.
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.