Posted on 10/08/2005 9:03:50 AM PDT by Crackingham
The whole point about Senate hearings is that the nominee is not supposed to saying anything about anything. Besides, if she does anything to indicate she is conservative, they will force her to recuse herself from any case. The fact is, Senate hearings are the WORST time to find out about a nominee. The only time to find out about a nominee is before they were nominated, and when they start cranking out decisions.
athanellen made Bush do it.
Naturally, I would be delighted to have my fears prove groundless. The important thing is not who's right and who's wrong, but that we desperately need another strong, reliable, influential conservative justice on the court.
Well, if Rove / Bush had done their homework they would have known that this was an issue and by now would have provided the punditry, and the rest of us who are told to sit down shut up and support the President enough facts that we could support him. The absence of such "facts" is also a fact that we can interpret how we will.
Very instructive post. Have you considered posting it separately? It's certainly substantial enough.
Well, it sure isn't mine.
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.
Huh? When the entire conservative class of sophists that had supported the party dissents, it is that the intellectual base has cleaved from the party. Perhaps the spiritual base is supportive, but some of it also seems to be objecting.
Nor does the Constitution stipulate that the Senate may not find someone unqualified by training, education, intellectual achievement or temperament. It does not say that the Senate must consent to all Presidential appointments.
His statement is that there is no evidence. That is not a judgment but a factual statement trivially refuted by supplying some [evidence]. If you have some, then please supply it. We would all like to see it.
Kristol was pushing for Maura Corrigan, an Associate Justice of the Michigan Supreme Court. She would have been a good pick.
Harriet Miers was not my first choice, but I don't think she's such a bad pick.
Roe v. Wade is a legal matter. It flows from Griswold and toward Planned Parenthood V. Casey. It represents federal judical power being asserted over the legislatures of the several states. Overturning Roe is as much a legal matter as it is a moral matter.
I still haven't heard about her judicial approach and her position on issues other than Roe. 'Till I hear that, jury is out.
On her, yes. On the wisdom of the pick, Bush is the only one in the line of fire.
Unfortunately, everybody in the mass media now has to exploit conflict in order to remain in the spotlight. If they're not creating controversy, their publishers will find somebody who will. They have no cards to play but fear and outrage. They have to make mountains out of molehills.
Eventually, their readership tires of these unrelenting cries of "Wolf,", deception and manipulation, and cuts them off. That's the reason for their shrinking credibility and readership.
These are the best of times if one looks around and engages meaningfully and authentically with the world. If one gets all their input from the mass media, these are the worst of times and one is in imminent peril of dying from the latest pandemic or Supreme Court nomination.
The time is right to cut off the mass media in favor of authentic exchanges with real people -- in reality. The mass media only exposes one to the fear- and hate-mongers of the world -- whom you don't need to know and know about. In the last stages of media sickness, the news is only about the columnist themselves -- not because they are interesting and newsworthy, but is their desperate cry for anybody to listen to them, to think they are important, to love them.
All you need to know about Bush's character is that he sold out his most loyal supporters by creating a new prescription drug entitlement to the tune of $1 trillion - $700 billion more than what he claimed it would cost. Yet when Freepers are told about this, they bury their heads in the sand.
Now Bush is trying to reward some staff weenie to be a justice on the highest court in the land. Miers has to be the least qualified nominee of all time. Her nomination to the Supreme Court is a humiliating blow to all those conservatives who, against all odds, worked hard to elect Bush because he promised strict constructionists. With Republicans in charge with 55 seats, we have been waiting for this for a long, long time. Instead, Bush stabbed us in the back by nominating someone who gave money to Bill Clinton. Ironically, Bush now has to put out this fire by telling the whole world she's a conservative! Smooth move! He might as well have nominated a proven conservative.
Freepers had better brace themselves for the next David Souter. The apple doesn't fall far from the tree.
Think Bolton and Wolfowitz. Bush is patronage rewarding those who brought him to the dance before returning to sing Home on the Range. Expect more of the same. It's like the Clinton pardons. Do it while you have the power.
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.