Posted on 10/08/2005 5:48:52 AM PDT by ncphinsfan
A footnote: President Bush had advised senators that his probable choice for the Supreme Court was federal Circuit Judge Consuelo Callahan of California. Bush touted Callahan's diversity as a Hispanic woman, but she is liberal enough to be recommended for the high court by Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer.
(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...
Harriet appears to have been, at best, the second choice. I wonder if Leahy and Kennedy had suggestions as well.
Let's Make a Deal!
Monty: Welcome to Let’s Make a Deal. Monty Hall here with you and let’s get started. Hello, and who are you?
John: I am John from Iowa.
Monty: Welcome John, let’s play! Well Jay what do you have for us this week?
Jay: This week we have Supreme Court nominees. Let’s have a look behind door number 1. It’s Harriet Miers! She’s a 60 year old Texan lawyer who has been a close advisor to the President for years. Harriet is a born again evangelical Christian who is unmarried and has no kids. A former Democrat who has drifted towards the Republican party after finding Christ. President Bush has reassured us that you will like her.
Monty: John what do you think?
John: Well President Bush promised me more, so I think I will go with door number 2.
Monty: Not so fast John, remember the gang of 7, those Republicans who compromised with the Democrats and have reportedly told the President not to send a too controversial pick.
John: Right, that does make it more difficult. Do we know anything else about this Harriet Miers?
Monty: Jay what else do we know?
Jay: Not much, unless you count gossip and rumors. Friends tell us she is pro-life and appears to believe in the individual right to bear arms. However there is also indications that she is sympathetic towards affirmative action and has a politically correct view of separation of Church and State. Did I tell you the President says you’ll like her?
John: Do I get to ask Harriet any questions?
Monty: Sure, and she will answer them as long as they don’t have anything to do with issues that might come before the court.
John: Shoot, what good is that then. So this is all I get to know about a Supreme Court lifetime appointment who is going to be a key vote in how our laws and Constitution is interpreted?
Monty: Well that’s it. So what is it going to be, Harriet Miers or door number 2?
John: Well since Bush tells us he believes this is his best choice, door number 2 is going to be worse. Can I take the goat behind door number 3? This process has made me ill.
Sen. John Cornyn, a Texas associate of Miers and her friend for 15 years, was the only speaker praising her during Tuesday's "morning business," though the leadership had hoped to fill that period with Miers boosters.
LOL. Just wait for the hearings.
John: Shoot, what good is that then. So this is all I get to know about a Supreme Court lifetime appointment who is going to be a key vote in how our laws and Constitution is interpreted?</i>
Really amazing. "Conservatives" whine endlessly about improper Democrat Litmus tests then demand they be allowed to impose their own! Sorry but wanting an activist on the court to rule YOUR way is is every bit as intellectually indefenisable as what the Hysteric Left does. But then I suspect most of the whiners are Moveon.org style "conservatives"
Truthfully, I would really be excited about the nomination of Harriet Miers under one condition, she was nominated to replace Ruth Bater Ginsburg. Why nominate a stealth moderate to replace a moderate. It is mindbogglingly.
Because we have the moderate GOP senators to deal with. But it should have been
1. Roberts for O'Connor.
2. Janice R. Brown for Rehnquist.
3. Save Miers if a liberal retires
That would have been Bush's best play.
Welcome to FreeRepublic.
Concern over "stealth" is a litmus test?
Because the GOP is too chicken, or too weak, or both, to confront the DEMs and liberals. They prefer "stealth conservatism," hiding the message under a bushel basket, as it woer. Barely complaining that the Senate has "imposed" an uncosntitutional superamjority requirement for confirmation.
Instead of arguing the relative merits of liberalism v conservatism (with a united and energized base on BOTH sides of that debate), this pick has, well, a decidedly different effect. ;-)
My advice would be that you stay away from politics forever. You probably should also stay away from history books.
Perhaps you should get out of the politics completely - forever. It would cause you a lot less stress.
Welcome.
Your sign-on date shows as being today. That's how we know.
Right..and I can't help but notice that the only ones NOT whining seem to be the rats. Even Dingy Harry praised Miers. This stinks. Do they know something we don't yet know?
I can't believe Bush would let the court go...after all this. Why even bother to have a majority if the left is going to win again and again? I'm so damn discouraged.
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.