Where are you getting that information?
If you want a Google GMail account, FReepmail me.
They're going fast!
Posted on 10/06/2005 3:13:10 AM PDT by KMAJ2
There is no denying that the Meirs nomination has caused a stir. The vitriol has risen in a short sighted furor emblematic of ideological elitism. What was once the purview of the progressive left has taken root in the conservative wing. Only only has to look at the postings in Free Republic. The vituperative rhetoric flows like unctuous bile from the fingertips, bootlickers, bushbots, morons, kool-aid drinkers, as the poster champions his elite point of view by defaming those who disagree. Rather than discussing on a reasoned basis, it has become the land of ad hominem and non sequiturs.
I do not think anyone believes Meirs is the best qualified, strictly going by having a paper trail. I doubt Bush really believes she is the best qualified in that aspect. So why would he choose her ? What led up to his making that choice. Whether we conservatives agree or disagree with certain of his policies, he is not a stupid man and he has shown himself to have good political instincts.
What I never see mentioned, can anyone name one judicial nomination of Bush's that has been bad ? Has he nominated anyone who has not fulfilled his promise ? He deserves a little more respect than he is being given on this front. His record is spotless on judicial nominations.
I have only seen one writer, Thomas Lifson, who has even hinted about how this nomination came about, none with an in depth analysis and/or strategy in the lead up. I offer this up for your reasoned thought.
Originally Meirs was not on the list for the very reason many have qualms, no extensive judicial bona fides (writings), and for obvious reasons, she is his advisor, an evangelical Christian, pro-life and conservative.
To Bush's surprise, democrats Reid and Leahy have her on their lists of suggested nominees. Why would these two democrat leaders put a pro-lifer on their list ? What reason would make any sense to explain it ? Because she was nice to them on the phone ? Does anyone really think they thought Bush would really nominate her ? No, she was on there as a bluff, so the democrats could say "See, we even offered conservative choices, and he ignored us." They would have used her as evidence that Bush was not playing fair in their case to the public.
Bush, being a skilled poker player, recognized the bluff, and called them on it. Meirs is the nominee. Who knows Meirs better than Bush, outside of Texas Supreme Court Judge Hecht in Texas ? She is not the lightweight many try to paint her as, you do not get voted among the Top 100 most influential attornies in the U.S. twice without having some legal savvy and expertise.
Right now, the democrats are hoping and praying the conservatives self-destruct and blow up her nomination, it is their only chance to escape and save face. If the conservatives open their eyes and see the big picture, NARAL, NOW and all the left wing women's groups are going to go ballistic if Meirs is supported by the democrats, yet, if they go back on their word, and fillibuster or block her, or attack her on religious grounds, they become hypocrites and the negative PR will be even more than the 'old media' can cover up.
If the democrats manage to defeat her or block her, Bush can then say, "I listened to you, and you still blocked her, I see no further need to waste time consulting with you", and a documented ideological conservative is nominated, the constitutional option is invoked and the democrats get the blame.
Mark my words, that ideological battle many conservatives are looking for is going to happen. The democrats CANNOT allow a capable, conservtive, pro-life, evangelical Christian attorney, who worships Bush, end up on the Supreme Court. Their special interest groups, especially the feminists, will revolt, the firestorm will tear the democrats apart.
My gut feeling on Meirs is she could possibly end up being to the right of Scalia and Thomas, paper trail or no paper trail, at worst, she will march lockstep with Roberts.
It is fine to be apprehensive, it is fine to ask questions, but draw in the claws, judicial nominations is one place where Bush's record is beyond reproach. The poison and venom need to stop, let the left eat their own, conservatives are supposed to be smarter than this.
This has to be one of the savviest political poker maneuvers I have seen. Misunderestimated by the democrats again ? This time he did it so well, it went over the heads of many conservatives.
Says you.
What a great post! It's nice to see someone using more than two brain cells and giving in to infantile temper tantrum instincts when dealing with this nomination.
Great post? It's a phoney news article written by someone subscribed to the FR.
Does "KMAJ" think we're that stupid?
So he used three brain cells to produce his infantile temper tantrum?
So you have no problem with gay marriage becoming the law of the land, Christ taken out of Christmas and God removed from the pledge?
Good point......My biggest fear is that if a fignt were to take place in the Senate and the republicans will, without a doubt, cave in again. In this case, I trust GWB selection over the concerns of others. He has a history of standing by conservative judges. On the other hand Republican senators have a history of whining and caving in to the RATs.
People do that occasionally -- it's allowed as long as it's a well-thought out argument (regardless of who agrees). If you have a problem with the argument, why don't you contribute a reasoned disagreement? If you have a prejudice against reading vanities, don't read them.
"My biggest fear is that if a fignt were to take place in the Senate and the republicans will, without a doubt, cave in again."
If that's the reality with this line-up of GOP senators, then we need them to cave. On record.
How else can conservative republicans begin the process of overthrowing incumbant GOP senators? There needs to be a tangible rallying issue.
Bush, by giving cover to the Specters, Warners and Grahams out there, works *against* changing the status quo, and becomes part of the problem himself.
It is strategically brilliant. As far as the 'angry, raging conservative street (think arab street :)), they will be quite happy after seeing the first several votes. Of course, some are just miserable malcontented whiners who live to complain. For them, no person living would do.
The problem wasn't that it was an opinion from a Freeper, but that fact that it was a ruse designed to look like an indepentent media article that caused my incredulity.
The article was an attempt to by-pass the very well-thought out type of argument you advocate, as if to silence principled critics of this SCOTUS nomination.
Where are you getting that information?
If you want a Google GMail account, FReepmail me.
They're going fast!
You talk just like a lib.
RINO.
Moderator, do you think you might add "Vanity" to the title? Of course, anyone who clicks on it sees that immediately . . .
You amuse me...........now go away.
I must say I liked those two descriptive sentences.
Finally something has become so all encompassing as to lay Microsoft, Wal-Mart, and Schiavo to waste.
[[Great post? It's a phoney news article written by someone subscribed to the FR.
Does "KMAJ" think we're that stupid?]]
Phony news article ? I do not believe I checked the extended news, front page or breakings news boxes. I clearly checked vanity for a personal opinion piece. What I find amusing is the lack of any reasoned response. Ad hominem and non sequiturs anyone ? FYI, my degree is in journalism.
Then why disrupt the class by raising your hand and bothering the teacher?
Journalism????? And you're proud of that???? You are a sicko!
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.