Posted on 10/08/2005 3:17:52 AM PDT by johnny7
The White House called about 45 minutes before the President on national television announced his choice for the Supreme Court. We had heard the week before that Harriet Miers was one of three people under serious consideration. The problem was no one knew much about her. We subsequently were told that she attended an Evangelical Church in Dallas, which had strong views on social issues. Still, as I told the White House, the nomination comes down to "trust me" from the President. I explained that I had witnessed five trust-me pleas regarding Presidential nominees for the Supreme Court and none has worked out right.
(Excerpt) Read more at renewamerica.us ...
A fine quip... but this next one is revealing.
"Don't just look for Conservatives to put on the High Court. Look for people who are conservative and have fought the wars and have survived." -Clarence Thomas
Harriet Miers is the TRUST ME! nominee .... excellent article
A lot of conservatives (including me) don't trust Bush anymore. He's not going to get a pass on this one.
None from this President so it is an nonsensical apples to oranges comparison. However before all the "Hate Meirs cause she is Bush's choice" people get all excited better read THIS statement made at the end of the article.
Anyway, how Meirs does in the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings could determine whether she gets confirmed. If she does well the Senate Floor Vote could be at least 70-30. If she doesn't and the Democrats were to decide to oppose her nomination a single "no" vote cast by a Republican, in effect, could kill the nomination. Potential no votes on the Senate Judiciary Committee are those of Senators Sam Brownback (R-KS) and Tom Coburn (R-OK). My guess is both Senators could end up voting for her but it is not certain. I promised the White House that if I am satisfied with the hearings I'll support her as well. Unfortunately, not before.
This is the fundamental point real Conservatives have been making to the Establishment Conservatives all along. Let find out the FACTS, not flame out just cause we are mad at Bush about this or that. So Weinrich is one of US, not one of you "Dump Miers Now" people.
Guess you didn't read the whole article. Read post 4 of this thread.
This wouldn't be the same Clarence Thomas who told the Senate that he had never read the Roe decision and didn't know enough about it to comment, would it? ;-)
I love Thomas, but even he had to do his best to fly under the radar.
Weyrich has sold out, don't you see? He's being thoughtful in his observation and isn't attacking Miers for not being pretty enough and host of other personal attacks and lies perpetuated by a number of people on this forum (though a small minority, based on the poll results).
Weyrich sounds a bit more in tune with where I stand - we need more information about her before jumping on the band wagon. Of course, since I don't support lying about her just because I'm not enthused with the nomination, I am a "Bushbot" who would "support Ginsburg if she had only been nominated by Bush", etc.
I didn't mean to imply she wouldn't pass. I think that's inevitable unless she says something really stupid in her confirmation hearings.
I said Bush won't get a pass, meaning he's not going to get the usual conservative support on this because this was a once in a lifetime possibility to reshape the court and he appears to have blown it.
I have finally had it with the Bush Administration and the Republican Party....I have left the Republican Party and will now go Independent....I no longer trust Bush or the Republican Party....I will support only candidates who are strictly Conservative...as for Bush - I think he's a Moderate Republican,,,NOT a Compassionate Conservative
Compassionate conservative was code all along for moderate. We just took a while to figure that out.
I am listening to a replay of Charles Krauthammer on FNC from last night. He says the sad thing is that Harriet Miers will have to recuse herself from Supreme Court decisions regarding the war on terror and other matters for which she has acted as White House counsel.
Is this true?
Red Alert, potential Rinofication of Paul Weyrich.
Indeed, and think of the wars he fought as a Black Conservative in the 1970s!
Yes. And maybe even some things with which she was involved while in her other capacities in the White House as well. Some have stated she will not be able to sit in on most War on Terror cases.
I have heard and seen some opine to this effect, Peach.
I don't know the truth of it, yet. But ask yourself this: if that is so slam-dunk true, then her selection by the President would be...not just impolitic or less than stellar as some say...it would be virtual insanity.
The WH would be so clueless, they would nominate someone that would on its face have to recuse themselves from many important cases??? If you and I are discussing this matter here, you mean the WH might not have thought of this, or maybe they knew it but didn't care???
This one has me stumped, because it makes utterly no sense.
It is worse than sad. It is treasonous in my book. But such is the State of the Union!
"He says the sad thing is that Harriet Miers will have to recuse herself from Supreme Court decisions regarding the war on terror and other matters for which she has acted as White House counsel. Is this true?"
I'd like an answer to that too, as I've heard it more than once. I've also heard that Bush chose Meirs, and Roberts, because he trusted them to go the right way on any WOT issues. However, if she's going to have to skip all those cases it sort of defeats that purpose, doesn't it?
If Miers' confirmation is a given, as you say (and I agree), then all of the public screaming from the Right won't matter.
If Miers' votes over the next three years and beyond are good, then Conservatives won't care that she didn't go to Harvard or write law review articles or serve on the DC Circuit.
If, on the other hand, Miers votes left of Sandra Dee, then the President will get creamed by all Conservatives, including me.
So what is the purpose of all of the screaming on the Right? More specifically, what does it mean that "Bush won't get a pass"? For what -- a three-day leave?
The President will stick by this nominee. Good for him.
Reagan, IMHO, was the best president of the 20th century... but yet even he could not forsee how O'Connor would perform in 2003/2005(see UM Affirmative Action, Kelo).
Harriet Miers worries the hell out of me.
Ping to you and good morning, MM.
What is your take on the latest hysteria that supposedly Harriet Miers would be unable to vote on many Supreme cases because she was WH Counsel and will have to recuse herself from many important cases in which she had some involvement at the WH?
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.