Posted on 10/07/2005 11:02:27 AM PDT by KMAJ2
Conservatives can trust in Miers - Newt Gingrich (excerpts) --- Ms. Miers' first remarks were reassuring in this regard: "It is the responsibility of every generation to be true to the founders' vision of the proper role of the courts and our society." She promised to "strictly apply the laws and the Constitution." --- she proved to be a very effective leader opposing the American Bar Association's official stance in support of abortion, including active support of taxpayer-funded abortions. --- she is deeply committed to the conservative ideal that the people themselves, not an unelected elite, should be able to decide about deeply held values. --- In addition, Ms. Miers brings an important type of diversity to the bench: diversity of experience. --- And perhaps most important, Mr. Bush has worked closely with Ms. Miers every day since his days as governor. The president knows her and knows what kind of justice she will make.
(Excerpt) Read more at baltimoresun.com ...
Personally, I think it is good to have at least one member of this court that is closer to the people rather than the elite halls of academia and the black robe brotherhood. While I lean toward supporting her, I am still withholding my final opinion for after the hearings.
"For the rest of us, she is a stealth nominee. Not since The Invisible Man has there been so much stealth.
That's not ideal by a long shot. But ideal was probably never in the cards, given the weak sisters among the Republicans' Senate "majority." ~Thomas Sowell~
It seems as the dust settles the more reasoned opinions are getting printed. I like your comment about "closer to the people". Is that what Bush had in mind? Perhaps.
Newt has completely changed his tune overnight without any reasoning or support other than "trust Bush". What did the white house offer you Newt?
Miers may turn out to be a great justice, but that still doesn't overlook the cronyism involved in the pick. And enough of this "I know what's in her heart" talk from the pres. I think Bush is not being completely honest when he insists she is the most qualified person for the job.
[[Newt has completely changed his tune overnight without any reasoning or support other than "trust Bush". What did the white house offer you Newt?]]
Thanks for proving me right about disparaging remarks from the entrenched. I think Newt listed quite a few reasons other than 'trust Bush'. Rather than be honest and acknowledge that fact, you choose to try to smear by innuendo. Such an intellectual tactic of reason, it reveals this type of tripe is not solely limited to DUers.
Conservatives can trust in Miers - Newt Gingrich
This article is just spin. I don't see any reasoning, he's simply buying everything he's fed, when he didn't buy it yesterday. I don't know what he was given or who spoke to him, but this editorial is not intellectually honest.
" She promised to "strictly apply the laws and the Constitution." --- she proved to be a very effective leader opposing the American Bar Association's official stance in support of abortion, including active support of taxpayer-funded abortions. --- she is deeply committed to the conservative ideal that the people themselves, not an unelected elite, should be able to decide about deeply held values. --- In addition, Ms. Miers brings an important type of diversity to the bench: diversity of experience. --- And perhaps most important, Mr. Bush has worked closely with Ms. Miers every day since his days as governor. The president knows her and knows what kind of justice she will make.
Every one of those arguments translates into "trust me". What evidence does Newt have that she will "strictly apply the laws of the constitution"? We've heard that a thousand times before, it's easy to say it, it's harder to demonstrate it. "Trust me" isnt' enough.
But, can you "trust" Newt?
(Did someone say mistress?)
President Bush has known her personally and professionally for many years. I am sure he is in a position to determine wither she is the best choice. Not to pick her just to avoid charges of cronyism would be cowardice.
It's going to be hilarious if conservatives scuttle this nomination and end up with a LESS conservative choice. There is a risk of being "hoist with your own petard" with all the hyperventilating over this nomination. It seems like from past picks its always a gamble.
Not this one:
she proved to be a very effective leader opposing the American Bar Association's official stance in support of abortion, including active support of taxpayer-funded abortions
This is something Harriet Miers actually did BEFORE she was in the WH to demonstrate a prolife position.
I think you 'misunderestimate' Bush. You don't think he knows he was engaging in semantic political gamesmanship with his 'most qualified' comment ? You think he is not aware of the weak republican support in the Senate ?
I do not rubber stamp everything Bush does, but I have taken a lot of time to study Bush tactics. It is easy to see why he confounds and confuses people, but always seems to prevail in the end.
My personal opinion ? It is because he is not a politician's politician. The vast majority of politicians come from a legal background, which is not conducive to big picture thinking and end game strategy. The legal profession tends to train people in narrow focus, the case before them, and not the wider implications of the aftermath.
Bush, on the other hand, comes from a business background, which requires looking ahead and at the big picture. You spend a little more here to get something else there. If someone gives you an opening to attain a goal easier, while spending less capital, you take it, saving that capital for another time. Reid and Leahy gave him that opening. No one has been able to give a reasonable expalantion for why they would recommend a conservative, pro-life, evangelical Christian. They certainly cannot claim to know her better than Bush does.
Cronyism is a fraudulent charge, were she a run of the mill attorney with no awards who chased ambulances, then you might be able to make that case. She is easily among the top 1% of attornies in this country. So much of comments like that are driven by her not being the choice a person wanted, she wasn't the one I wanted either, I was hoping for Garza or Miguel Estrada. But, we weren't elected president, we don't get to choose.
What evidence do we have they any nominee will act in a particular way once they have been appointed? None, none whatsoever. Once on the Supreme court they answer to no one and can do as they please.
The best guarantee you can have that this will not happen is if you have personally know the candidate for a long period of time. President Bush knows Harriet Miers much better than any other candidate, hence the reason for picking her.
Yeah... but can we trust Newt?
This man is the "Bibi" Netanyahu of American political discourse.
And trust me, I don't intend that analogy to be flattering.
Far from it.
I'm just waiting for Roger Stone to step forward with his wholehearted endorsement of her nomination.
Maybe that will finally put the nail in this coffin.
Well he's just lost my vote in the 2008 primary
The Newt/Hillary axis: http://tinyurl.com/d276z .
If it were up to me, Don Nickles or Jon Kyl would be running for POTUS, but I doubt that'll happen.
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.