Posted on 10/06/2005 6:25:16 PM PDT by wagglebee
I should take his opinion seriously?
Boy did I miss out. I haven't been able to listen to Rush for the last few weeks, but to hear the best spoken man in the nation reduced to incoherency, well, that would be something!
"Someone said trust, but verify. Fine, Harriet Miers is pro-life, period. How do I know? She has donated $1000 to the following Congressional candidates: Jon Newton, Don Stenberg, Pete Sessions. All of them are solid pro-life Republicans, you wouldn't donate to them if you are pro-abortion. She has attended pro-life dinners and donated to pro-life groups."
I am solid pro life but, believe it or not, there are other issues, more important that can be tackled before RvW.
RvW has been around for a long time. Liberalism has been creeping for even longer. I prefer a court that will roll back some of the extremes that the libs have foisted on us over the last 60 years.
Tackle each in its own time and use well chosen cases to make the decisions.
I'm still waiting for the wave of calm and euphoria to wash over me.
“You really have to be more charitable toward him. After all, Clement Attlee is a very humble man.” “Yes,” replied Winston Churchill, “and he has much to be humble about.”
And you still have not given any evidence that she will not be a strict constitutionalist. You are just going on a gut feeling and a distrust of Bush.
So, by your post, I could reason, that Miers has agreed to President Bush's full-on-court-press of OUR border/port issues? Correct?
Lies.
In response to Corillo's specific comments:
I realize that many are concerned about Miers, but I think we need to trust Bush. Every judicial nominee of his has proven to be a solid conservative, and I believe Miers will not spoil that record.
That's not my main concern. Hey, maybe Miers will vote with Thomas every time. I hope so. Maybe she'll be as eloquent and as forceful in her defense of the Constitution. I hope so, but I doubt it. My biggest problem with this nomination, and I think a lot of people share this viewpoint, can be summed up in two words: MISSED OPPORTUNITY. This was a rare chance to put a real powerhouse on the Supreme Court. My personal preference would be for Judge Kozinski, my favorite judge ever, but there were plenty of solid candidates. Indeed, the federal bench is replete with conservative superstars. And every last one of them was passed up for Harry Reid's choice, a woman whose nomination prompted the nationwide rallying cry "Harriet Who??". President Bush could've given us an exclamation point. Instead, he's given us a question mark.
What message does this send to bright young conservative jurists? "If you believe the Constitution means what it says and should be interpreted as such, keep your mouth shut about it. Don't be a highly visible supporter of strict constructionism, or you can just forget about elevation to the High Court, no matter how deserving. Instead, be as obscure as possible, and try to become close personal friends with an ambitious politician.
Bah.
God love ya, wagglebee. Thank you for this excellent post. The hardliners probably won't give this article a first or second thought, but hopefully those with more faith in God and our President will.
BUMP!
Read these:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1496051/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1496071/posts
There's always that one sentence that makes you quit reading.
I voted for Bush twice because I trust him. A "commoner" on the Supreme Court is exciting to me... but not as exciting as Laura Ingraham or Ann Coulter would have been!
I don't think it's a "rationalization", but it definitely is "rational".
"I'm still waiting for the wave of calm and euphoria to wash over me."
LOL! My sentiments exactly. This is gaining momentum, not losing it. I think we are approaching critical mass. Every conservative legal expert is against this nomination to varying degrees, and several Senators are starting to come out against her (to varying degrees once again) even after meeting with her. I think someone should lead a campaign to get Bush to withdraw this nomination (or rather have Miers withdraw herself).
Because as Roberts so eloquently stated, SC justices are not politicians!
But, but, but. How can it be. The elites are insisting bench time is a requirement!
'Constitutional convictions'!!! What a strange term in today's vernacular. The pundits may not understand it, but "we, the People" know that whatever she lacks in artificial "credentials" can be made up by the conviction that the United States Constitution is and was, as someone observed a long time ago, the most miraculous document ever invented by the mind and purpose of man. Her fidelity to that document and its provisions (including the process required for its own amendment) is what will distinguish her service.
Great post!
As Dr. Mohler said, some of what we are learning about Harriet Miers is genuinely encouraging. She has been identified as an evangelical Christian with deep Christian commitments.
This means that Harriet Miers is not a product of the tight and relatively insulated world of legal scholarship and the judiciary. Her real-world experience in litigation, management, church, and life means that she is less likely to fall prey to the "inside the beltway" syndrome.
We'll put you down as yet another pretend writer who the president didn't consult before he nominated somebody.
Bitter. Bitter.
What if... Harriet Miers isn't supposed to be confirmed? As the days wear on, the dems, who originally seemed pleased with this nominee, are slowly backing off as news of her evangelical background comes into focus. They will not vote to confirm her based on her Christian beliefs, but they'll cite her lack of experience and a "paper trail."
This will be a lie, of course, the real reason won't be her presumed lack of experience, it'll be the Jesus thing and they'll swear up one side of the Constitution and down the other that it's not her ideology.
This is where they'll fall into the trap. The usual RINOs will side with the dems on her confirmation or lack thereof. The President will then withdraw her nomination, citing a new era of cooperation. "Advise and consent" has worked again just as it did with John Roberts. Since now the dems will be on record saying it isn't about ideology, it's about qualifications, citing Justice Roberts again, the road will be paved for the nomination of Priscilla Owen or Janice Rogers Brown.
Since the dems weren't opposed to either of them recently, i.e. the "gang of 14 deal", and the dems clamor for a highly qualified candidate, they won't have any ground to stand on while trying to oppose either Brown or Owen.
Perhaps it's rose colored glasses or a wild pipe dream, but I can't believe that the President, who has been shrewd in nearly all of his appointments until now would not have a more... sinister plot behind this nomination than just putting Aunt Bea out there to go on the Supreme Court.
This would also be the perfect scenario to use the "nuclear option" if a fight would arise. Not only would the President have just loaded the Senate's weapon, he'd have aimed it and done everything but pull the trigger for them.
...or I could be on crack.
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.