Posted on 10/06/2005 1:19:21 PM PDT by quidnunc
Promptly at 8 a.m. Monday, President Bush announced his next appointee for the Supreme Court.
By 9 a.m. the nominee had been denounced as a crony, too unknown and too lightweight.
The dead-on-arrival pronouncements came not from the usual caustic acronyms of the left — NARAL, NOW, PFAW — but from the right.
Conservative cannibalism had begun. The left enjoyed the entertainment.
Why not? Politics often is NASCAR, and people hang around to see who crashes.
The workaday Dale Earnhardts have their Jeff Gordon president in their sights.
This is not about Harriet Miers, an eminently qualified lawyer who made her bones in the real world of corporate law, placing her skills on the marketplace and succeeding.
She is not some elitist professor or some lifer appellate judge. Miers became the first woman lawyer at a big Dallas law firm, and then worked her way to managing partner, the CEO of 400 lawyers.
Along the way she had the temerity to challenge whether the American Bar Association should endorse abortion.
If post-Reagan conservatives cannot endorse her, then they should go back to their glory days of John Birch and opposition to the fluoridation of water.
But this is not about her nomination. Heck, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a former lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union, won confirmation with only three nay votes.
This is about President Bush. Conservatives are fed up with him, and their list of particulars is credible. Not everyone has the same list, but these seem to be the big ones.
-snip-
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.com ...
If Harriet Miers is defeated the Bush administration will be immmeasurably weakened and the next nominee will be much,much worse from the conservative standpoint.
Wrong. Bush finished the Republican party when he acted out of cowardice and appointed this quisling crony, rather than fighting for those that have done so much to support him. Reps don't have a chance in '06.
I agree completely! If this nomination should fail, the next will not be a conservative but a "moderate" that the Democrats will support.
The whining is getting annoying isn't it?
Ditto
Nothing is known about Miers. So, knowing everything about nothing still adds up to nothing>
We've had FOUR stealth candidates appointed by Republican Presidents in the past 25 years. Only ONE ended up being an originalist. Why would anyone with a brain consider this to be an acceptable strategy? What good is Republicans controlling the Senate if a known originalist can't be nominated?
It's no wonder we never see any changes in this country when we have conservatives that are dumb enough to let the Republicans keep getting away with such a strategy.
The facts are the liberals are smarter than we are. Their President found two known leftists and got them appointed. There was no question where Ginsberg and Breyer stood, no need to guess how they would vote and both ended up being reliable votes for the left. I'd like to see the Republicans use the same strategy before anyone posting here is dead, but it doesn't seem to likely to happen.
You know, from all the complaints I've heard, it seems that it's "we don't know anything." So why dont' we all just shush up and wait for the hearings.
In a passing moment of concurrence with Ol' Sparky, I'll bump this post.
Who's the one?
Are you implying Sir that the President of the United States of America, Our President. Is a Coward.?
Actually, a fair amount is known— both through her prior statements and through the testimonials of those who worked closely with her.
Incidently, Anthony Kennedy was NOT a stealth candidate; insofar as anyone could determine he brought very solid conservative credentials to the court.
I hope so because I want tne frigging idiots around here to get what they deserve. The next person he should nominate should be someone like dean and then go down from there.
I hope so because I want tne frigging idiots around here to get what they deserve. The next person he should nominate should be someone like dean and then go down from there.
Lindsey Graham, Senator S.C.
“President Bush has made a solid pick for the Supreme Court.
“Harriet Miers has been in the legal trenches throughout her career and has a tremendous understanding of how the law works in people’s everyday lives. Her legal experience combined with her life experience makes her a solid choice.
“I hope for and anticipate a smooth confirmation process with a significant bipartisan vote in support. In my opinion, there will be no filibuster as she is a mainstream conservative who will be a strict constructionist on the Supreme Court."
I hope so because I want tne frigging idiots around here to get what they deserve. The next person he should nominate should be someone like dean and then go down from there.
If this nomination fails, Bush, Rove and the GOP will see how much they stand to lose by not appointing a verifiable, Scalia-like justice. The Republicans are in deep trouble if they alienate their base on this issue and the appointed of a known originalist is the only thing that will motive the base.
What a cobbled together mess. I'm not sure whether this guy even understood the point he was trying to make.
Articles like this one are probably why Don writes for a backwater fishwrap.
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.