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.
Learn how to spell her name for chrissakes!
[[Tip: Put down the thesaurus and pick up Strunk and White. That punctuation is atrocious. Unless you meant to say that fingertips, bootlickers, bushbots, etc. were flowing "unctuous bile." And I think that would be even worse. . .]]
Thank you for the critique. There were a few other errors, too. It happens when I don't proofread. Shame on me. I don't use a thesaurus, though. If I wish to publish, I may need Strunk and White, the AP News Stylebook is short on detail.
>>they will be quite happy after seeing the first several votes
How do you know? And what will her votes be 10 years hence? Her loyalty is to GWB, not to any particular reading of the Constitution.
[[Miers not Meirs]]
Thanks for the correction
You make it sound like some personal decision that has no impact on the rest of us.
Quite an exhibit of leadership......NOT.
Uh oh, people are not happy, I'd better attack the President too.
Ugh.
Clearly the shoe fit. Duck and cover! Cause the flames will be coming your way!!!!
Your vanity post is voided by the logical fallacy of begging the question. That question is: Will Miers be a strict constructionist on the Court?
The correct answer is: Nobody knows.
As for CJ Roberts, his questioning during the first oral arguments he presided over were troubling. Now, he might have been playing devil's advocate to elicit reasoned responses in support of his position, but if you take his questioning at face value, he is favorable to sweeping federal government takeover of certain States Rights (although this particular issue is a painful one to give to Oregon, the right to kill terminally ill who want to die.) Taking over States Rights is hardly a strict constructionalist viewpoint. Time will tell, when the ruling on that case is released.
But for now, it's troubling.
AMEN!
How do you possible make THAT leap? Because she answered a question once that said that she believe that homosexuals should have civil rights? Of COURSE they should have civil rights, just like every other citizen in this country. What Ms. Miers did NOT say, and many in their haste to condemn her seem to be missing this point, is that homosexuals should have some sort of SPECIAL rights that the rest of us don't have solely based on their choice of lifestyle. That's a position I haven't seen ascribed to her anywhere.
I wouldn't have, but Frank T apparently had a problem -- just trying to accommodate him. Probably just should have ignored him.
Was this written by a thesaurus?
I support Harriet Meyers because W is nominating somebody he knows very well (unlike Mr. Souter and his nominating pres). W isn't going to compromise here.
This post is very, very, funny because the poster is what he describes.
I'll repeat your question. How do you know?
I have yet to call one Harriet supporter a name. Meanwhile I have been told to go back to DU, called a liberal, a moonbat, and much more. I am not just gonna walk lockstep in what I think was not a wise pick. Bush could of handled both these choices better.
She was his personal attorney, his counsel as Governor and President. GWB only keeps those with great loyalty in his inner circle. The only thing proved is her loyalty to the President.
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.
Yup. You got it, Frank. We frequently hear people say about those on the left, "How can they keep electing that Teddy Kennedy/Barney Franks/Barbara Boxer, et al?". At least those pukes actually represent their liberal extremist constituents. We, however, keep electing McCains and Specters and Snowes and the like who actually work against the Conservative platform in all their middle mushiness. Cheerleading for your side when it is WRONG is, well, just WRONG.
Q: What is the fastest way to have your facts, grammar, spelling and tone checked on any thesis you may wish to publish?
A: Post it on Free Republic
;)
How is it an ad hominem attack to point out the obvious? This SCOTUS nominee is at best a "stealth" candidate. There is no stand being taken.
If decades of ground work results in Miers, then yes, it is logical to call the federal Republican leadership out for what it has done: sold us out.
And if that is true, these people do not deserve our votes or money.
But here's an ad hominem for you. Only the most unprincipled and blind GOP supporters will not act to reverse the course this party is taking, even if that means booting some representatives out of the House. It is not enough to be anti-Democrat. There's many on our side that are part of the problem too. Miers is not the person to stand up against Kelo, first amendment and abortion type issues.
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.