BWA HA HA HA HA HA HA!! Thanks for reminding me of that...I had forgotten about Pat's GOOD REFORM BUDDY...BWA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!
YEAH PAT--HOW'S YOUR BUDDY LENORA DOIN'????
Posted on 10/06/2005 3:32:08 PM PDT by Map Kernow
“Sometimes, party loyalty asks too much,” said JFK.
In asking conservatives to support Harriet Miers, prior to full Judiciary Committee hearings, George W. Bush asks too much.
Trust me, Bush is saying. Trust but verify, they should reply.
For as of today there is no evidence Harriet Miers possesses the judicial philosophy, strength of intellect, firmness of conviction or deep understanding of the gravity of the matters on which her vote would be decisive to be confirmed as Associate Justice of the Supreme Court.
If she does not exhibit these qualities in testimony before the Judiciary Committee, Harriet Miers should be rejected. That she is a woman, a good lawyer, a trusted friend of the Bush family, a born-again Republican and Evangelical Christian is not enough. That Dr. James Dobson has been secretly assured by Karl Rove she is pro-life is not enough. After all, we have a president who professes to be “pro-life,” yet cannot bring himself to say that Roe v. Wade was an abomination he hopes will go the way of Dred Scott.
Because of the immense damage the Supreme Court has done to our society over fifty years, seizing upon and dictating on issues beyond its constitutional province, imposing a social revolution from above, tearing our country apart over race, religion and morality, conservatives cannot take any more risks. We are too close, now, to the promised land.
After Nixon named Blackmun, Ford named Stevens, Reagan gave us the malleable O’Connor and Tony Kennedy and Bush’s father gave us that textbook turncoat Souter, presidential assurances are not enough. We must hear from Harriet Miers herself of her judicial philosophy and views of what the court has done and should do.
Why did Bush do it? Is he unaware of the history or savagery of this struggle? Does he not understand the cruciality of this one court appointment to conservatives who vaulted him to the nomination over McCain and gave him the presidency twice? Does he not care?
Since the Goldwater and Nixon campaigns of the 1960s, a great philosophical struggle over the Supreme Court has been waged. In that 40-years war, jurists like Clement Haynesworth and Robert Bork have been pilloried, smeared and rejected by a liberal Senate that realizes the stakes. Others like Clarence Thomas have survived brutal scourgings. Brilliant young lawyers and aspiring judges like Miguel Estrada have even been denied a vote for the appellate court because of liberal fears they may have the stuff of another Scalia.
Yet now we are told by the White House Harriet Miers is an ideal candidate because she “has no paper trial.” But what does that mean, other than that Miers has never declared herself with courage and conviction on any of the great issues from 1965 to 2005.
This is now a qualification for the U.S. Supreme Court? To have been AWOL in the great social and moral conflicts of her time? This is like saying the ideal candidate to sit on the Joint Chiefs of Staff is an officer who has never seen combat or suffered a wound.
There are today third-generation conservatives who have bravely defended their beliefs in hostile law schools, clerked for Supreme Court justices, paid their dues in the White House or the Department of Justice, joined the Federalist Society, advanced by excellence and merit to federal judgeships. The message of the Miers appointment to this generation is: You made a mistake. You left a “paper trail.” Is this the message we want to send to the next generation: Don’t let anybody know where you stand on gay rights, affirmative action, or Roe v. Wade?
Is this what the conservatism has come to? By the standard of “no paper trail,” we would never have nominated Scalia or Bork, or Ronald Reagan, who, with his thousands of radio and TV commentaries, had the longest paper trail in American history.
In claiming Miers is the most qualified person he knows to fill the seat of Sandra Day O’Connor, President Bush tells us more about himself than her. If she is truly that qualified, why did he hide this extraordinary talent in the paper-shuffling job of White House staff secretary? Why was she not named White House Counsel instead of Gonzales? Why was she not nominated to the U.S. Appellate Court for the District of Columbia to give her judicial experience? If she is that good, why did Bush pass her over for John Roberts?
Twenty-four hours after he picked his personal lawyer for the Supreme Court, George Bush was in the Rose Garden trying to put out the firestorm he had ignited in his own base camp. How’s that for political brilliance?
His aides are now demanding that Republican Senators and conservatives rally around their president. They should not. They should tell the president, respectfully, that, though he went with Harry Reid, they will stay with their convictions.
It’s stand up time again, as in the days of old.
And that's the exact attitude that caused Bush to lose. Pat was Bush's "worst enemy", yet Bush thought the best strategy was to stick his head in the sand and ignore him. And Republicans still don't learn.
Why'd it take you so long to play the "racist" card? Say "hello" to bayourod---I know he misses it here....
I smell something..and I don't like it.
I am more apt to side with Bush on his judicial appointments; he's had a damn good track record so far.
Not as much as you like our country losing control of its borders, eh? Not as much as you like Mexico invading and appropriating our national territory, eh? Not as much as you like taxpayers being stuck with health, education and welfare costs for illegal immigrants that your rich scofflaw friends hire, eh? Not as much as you like our jails filling up with violent illegal immigrant criminals, eh? Not as much as you like police officers with wives and children being shot dead by an illegal during a traffic stop, eh?
Sure beats the hell out of thinking critically, doesn't it?
BWA HA HA HA HA HA HA!! Thanks for reminding me of that...I had forgotten about Pat's GOOD REFORM BUDDY...BWA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!
YEAH PAT--HOW'S YOUR BUDDY LENORA DOIN'????
Illegal immigration is a decades old problem. Bush did not create it nor can he stop it by himself. To use that issue to bash him is just a cheap shot.
George Bush has a reasonable plan to slow immigration and eventually secure the borders, but it is not vicious enough for the far right which obviously includes you.
The majority of the people that come across that border are god fearing people wanting to better themselves. As long as we have the disparity between us and them, we will have illegal immigration.
If you want the border closed, lobby the states to call out the Guard, if you think that will stop it, you are being foolish.
I repeat, I'm sick of this lame attack on George Bush.
Illegal Immigration? Not an issue.
Spending bill veto? Don't make me laugh!
Strict constructionist judges? "Trust me"
It figures you didn't receive any replies to this post. There are as many Kool-Aid drinkers here as there are at the DU.
Just like alcoholics, they are in denial.
Anybody care to post that has snapped out of their trance this year?
Fair enough, but Thomas still had much more relevant experience in constutional law than Miers. Also, at 43, he was much better pick in terms of longevity.
The President is not a fascist, that is over the line.
Are you guys really that slow that you think Map was calling Bush a fascist? I'll bet you fall for all of Rush's April Fools' Day jokes too.
There is a firestorm brewing in the conservative camps over this issue and I think that you may be wrong when you say that Miers is going to be confirmed. Too many high priced conservatives are talking against this nomination and their talk is bleeding into the Senate majority......
It is interesting that Buchanan calls himself a 'conservative' in this article?????
It must be great to be able to read other people's minds. You are able to tell us what Bush is thinking even when he says that is not what he is thinking.
I am in awe of your great power and wisdom </sarcasm>
Yeah, I read his reply to some party member and misunderstood the context.
Yeah, me too. Some on this forum are so busy forming a circular firing squad they can't hear anything else.
"Down in the backseat Junior!" - President Bush
In their minds, they ARE the president.
How do you know she stinks? I will say this for Miers, Darth-Bader-Ginsburg wasn't a "stealth nominee". It's unconscionable when 42 Republicans voted for Ginsburg on the Senate Floor.
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.