You are one of the type of people that would jump out of a boat because it might spring a leak. You have nothing to indicate Roberts and Miers won't vote exaclty as a Thomas or Scalia would. But keep ranting, you are doing the party a lot of good.
Ya Right!
My belief is that in this political climate with a weak Senate leader and squishy Republican Senators, the President knew ahead of time that anyone like Luttig or Jones with a long paper trail of Conservative decisions would never even muster 51 votes.
After being royally shafted by Republican presidents who have left horrible Supreme Court picks in their wake, did this president not consider how this weak choice would be received? That proves he isn't a conservative or he would have known. We don't need a Souter-in-a-skirt to sit on the court for the next 20 years, diluting the votes of the real conservatives, Thomas and Scalia. This was a real slap in the face to these good men who have borne the heat and burden of battle all these years, with only haphazard support from O'Connor. Whoever advised the president on this choice should be fired...unless it was Laura, who can't be fired.
Integrity means blaming the son for the mistakes of the father? Well, OK, I guess . . .
Actually most conservatives love to whine and attack their own. Bush does have a record of nominating conservative judges. That is something we do know.
And as far as souter is concerned, Bush the elder did not know souter, he relied on the recommendation of his chief of staff. W did study the mistakes of his father's administration. I seriously doubt that he will make the same mistakes. Especially since he's know this person for over 10 years.
Actually most conservatives love to whine and attack their own. Bush does have a record of nominating conservative judges. That is something we do know.
And as far as souter is concerned, Bush the elder did not know souter, he relied on the recommendation of his chief of staff. W did study the mistakes of his father's administration. I seriously doubt that he will make the same mistakes. Especially since he's know this person for over 10 years.
You wouldn't be cribbing slogans and nouns out of the handbooks of those who authored the "We had to destroy the village in order to save it" liberal handbook, would you?
Fella, you're gonna get a lot of party before principle types pushing the abuse button, out of fear that this thread will stay up on Free Republic.
After Roberts was nominated, I made the same point and Miss Marple challenged me to back it up with the facts. So, I researched it, and was surprised by the result.
President Bush never promised to nominate someone in the mold of Scalia or Thomas. What he did promise, however, and that more than once, was to nominate someone who is a strict constructionist.
The phrase "in the mold of Scalia and Thomas" was first made by Al Gore, and he said it in a snarley way. The MSM picked up on that phrase, and within weeks, it was conventional MSM wisdom that Bush had made that promise. But he didn't.
So, if you're going to post a vanity thread, at least get your facts right.
You might ask what's the difference, and I would say there's a lot of difference. It's a difference of what the measuring stick is going to be. Scalia and Thomas have different voting patterns. Thomas is closer to being the total strict constructionist. Scalia is funnier, as well as being a deeper thinker.
But super-deep thinking is not necessarily the prime requisite of a strict constructionist. A strict adherence to the Constitution is. The Constitution is written in plain language, arguably to keep it accessible to the masses, who are not generally super-deep thinkers.
But all that isn't to say we need shallow thinkers on the Court. Far from it.
You had no say in who Clinton nominated.
You had no say in who Bush 41 nominated.
You had no say in who Reagan nominated.
The President was elected (with or without your vote) and that earns HIM the right to nominate who HE wants.
He told voters that he would nominate someone in the mold of a Scalia or Thomas. The voters elected him. End of story.
I just love so-called conservatives that want to Bork one of their own based on no knowledge whatsoever.
We are the ideology of logic and reason --- not the emotional garbage spewed here.
It seems that there are two central camps:
1. Those who see this as the best chance to engage the enemy head on, draw copious quantities of blood and leave the enemy utterly vanquished. Or, willingly die on the battlefield content that they've sacrificed themselves for a noble cause.
2. Those who see the war as a war and are not yet ready to define it in the terms of a single, bloody battle; regardless of the momentary satisfaction of bloodlust it may bring.
The scope and extent of the arguments of generals rarely are shared with battalion commanders, platoon leaders, sergeants and corporals. Yet, when the generals decide, the rest of them must go forward. Front line grunts may disagree with the choice made, but forward they go.
Active debate between the blood spillers and the decision makers is a healthy thing, in the main. However, there is always a small, quite vocal at times, minority - both generals and corporals - for whom the immediate battle both defines the war and determines its outcome; usually due to the inability to shift from the narrow focus of the task at hand to the overall stratgey required to triumph in the end; for a variety of reasons not all of which either are explainable nor are logically evident.
The logical conclusion in this instance seems to be to maintain the ability to constructively and realistically criticize the process by which this decision was made. However, any specific, personal criticisms of the nominee's abilities, capabilities and probable future performance cannot logically be done until more insight is gained; which will only occur during the hearing process. Only then, will it be possible to render a cogent, logical decision; unless of course, one is in the habit of making such decisions from a foundation of emotion rather than logic.
Here's another interesting variable to throw into the argument. I wonder how many of the senators who may vote "No" on this nominee, yet who voted "Yes" for Ginsburg (and also, those senators' supporters who continue to vote for them in election after election and are FR posters) - knowing that they fundamentally disagreed with her ideology, her beliefs and her general world-view - will be able to logically justify that "No" vote if this nominee's positions more closely mirror theirs.
This indeed is George Bush's "No New Taxes".
It really matters no more how Miers will turn out (a disaster in my opinion as well as Bork's). The fact is Bush chose not to appoint a Luittig, a Jones or a Brown, or one of that mold.
Betrayal.
I hope Ms.Meirs is what the President says she is, but only time will tell. We will not be able to thank him or excoriate him by the time the truth is revealed in her decisions.
The frightening thing to me is the erosion of the conservative base which may be irretrievable even if Ms.Meirs were to withdraw her name from contention for the seat. The last time it happened that the base was so demoralized we got 8 years of Clinton. I do not know if Bush and the republicans can energize the base for '06 and '08 if this perception persists and Hillary is waiting in the wings for her stage call.
bump