Posted on 10/06/2005 6:13:22 AM PDT by ejdrapes
Who's running? Not me.
I probably dislike Frum's views more than you do (don't get me started on the Frummer boy!)....but that's beside the point. He is not the only source of information about Mier's support for preferences.
the self proclaimed bushbots...they seem to be making attacks on noted conservatives they supported up until monday...and attacking posters here asking the same questions.
And when hard hitting questions come their way...they're off to find another thread.
Not one has bothered to defend Miers against the charge that she supports preferences. To me, if we put a pro-preferences nominee on the SC, that is the whole ball game. I guess they don't care.
But Frum's main objection to her is not about racial preferences, but her pro-life views which he strongly opposes.
He knows he can't attack her openly on this in conservative circles without losing his credibility, so his leadoff argument is to imply that she's too stupid to serve.
That's disgusting and dishonest.
I agree with your analysis. I would guess that Harriet is more conservative than Frum.
Frum is not the issue. Miers is. If she supports, racial preferences, how can anyone claim with a shread of credibility claim that his "conservative?"
that's should be "that she is consesrvative."
Screw David "My Glass House Is Clearly Nicer Than Yours" Frum.
Nobody, including Roberts is going to change the Gingsberg et al opinion. It's not like they're going to say something so profound when they get on the court that the left says ...... Gee.. that's right, I'll vote with you. So once we get past this idea that the person has to be a good arguer, it just comes down to how will they vote. Period.
We're told she's a 3rd grade sunday school teacher, church committee member, fundamentalist christian at a fundamentalist evangelical church, and she interprets the constitution as literal as she does the bible. If that's true.... she'll be the most conservative on the bench. Much more conservative than Frum, Coulter, Kristol et al.
I've been speculating that Bush knows her well, and he asks us to trust him, which I would like to do. That's fine, but this article makes me wonder if she's as conservative as I am.
Is Frum pro-choice?
Don't know how old you are Captain, but conservatives were in general support of some racial preferences during the late sixties and seventies. Over time, we have seen the results of that and we moved to a more neutral position on preferences and against quotas. At the time of Martin King, it was the way it was. To compare the time frames is almost apples and oranges.
In another thread, the point was raised that a more conservative nomination may have brought "a robust debate about the proper role of the judiciary", and that a "more 'controversial' candidate would have a much better chance of sparking such a discussion."
I think Miers perfectly fits the descriptions, but first, most people, INCLUDING our learned pundits, must first learn one basic fact.
When discussing the qualifications of a Supreme Court nominee (or any Court for that matter), I don't want to discuss whether that nominee has advanced any principles OTHER than Constitutional principles!
If that nominee is a Christian, and stands on the right side of the political spectrum, that's just a bonus.
One last thing...about her qualifications, or lack of them.
There are none listed in the US Constitution, what we have here, are elitists bitching that someone other than an elite has been nominated for such an elite post.
Screw them all...
Screw these elitists whose primary complaint on Harriet Miers is that she's not an elite member of their inner circles.
Let the woman stand or fall or her knowledge of Constitutional law, not on whether her predetermined ideas, driven by political partisanship, suits any of the screaming, elitist, talking heads that over crowd the American political landscape these days.
Probably Hecht. He and Owen dissented in the Texas parental notification case, where Gonzales is painted as being pro-choice.
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1440372/posts?page=45#45
It has been reported that Hecht and Miers have dated, and are in regular contact. I like what I have seen of Hecht's jurisprudence.
-Can you see any instance in this long life and career where Miers ever took a risk on behalf of conservative principle?
-Can you see any indication of intellectual excellence?
-Did she ever do anything brave, anything that took backbone?
-Did anyone before this week ever describe her as oustanding in any way at all?
Yet another example of a conservative pundit who believes the appointment should be treated as a spoil of war, a reward, a medal of honor bestowed upon some warrior who took it to the mat.
The above remarks are extremely insulting, but most of these people know they will never be seeing Miers again, so what the hey.
You betcha the Senate is a problem.
Before we get to Miers, do you think the GOP leadership in the Senate might be persuaded to take up the nomination of Myers (who was reported out of committee on March 17) and Boyle (who was reported out on June 16). Reid has said he would lead a filibuster against voting on the confirmation of Myers. Maybe we can at least get that dysfuntion fixed before we move on to this SCOTUS nomination.
If that means: does Frum support the murder of unborn children? The answer is yes.
At least that is my reaction. Everyone (including the pundits) is falling all over themselves to attack the President. No one seems to be asking WHY he made this decision, except for ridiculous comments inferring that he's afraiad of the democrats or he wanted to reward a "buddy."
I don't for a minute think Bush is afraid of democrats. All one has to do is look at actions like the recess appointment of Bolton, the knocking down of Kyoto, etc. and that motive is shown to be silly.
I do, however, think that some Republican senators are afraid of the democrats, or at least of the media. Miers is the nominee who was most conservative (originalist) that he could get those squishes to support, because she doesn't have a paper trail.
I had flagged the same phrase you did: in Washington. It literally jumped out at me. I think we're finally unraveling the mystery of the seemingly inexplicable opposition to this nomination. They don't think Miers is worthy to join the club.
She doesn't have the "right" credentials, she doesn't know the right people, she didn't spend her life enmeshed in theoretical legal scholarship. She didn't play by the elite legal establishment rules and now it's not "fair" that she's allowed in!
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.