White House struggles to stem revolt over Supreme Court choice

London Telegraph ^ | Oct. 9, 2005 | Phillip Sherwell

[Lancey Howard]

At a time when his approval ratings have dipped below 40 per cent the President chose a nominee with no judicial track record, largely to avoid a bruising battle with Democrats who were expected to oppose better-known conservative candidates.

There they go again! Sheesh!
One day they say that Bush turned yellow and ran scared from the RINOs and the next day they say Bush turned yellow and ran scared from the Democrats. I really wish they would make up their minds - - which is it?

[Nowhere Man]

The Administration took conservatives for granted. We swallowed a lot to get a committed conservative on the bench and then the President sends a message he cares more about Harry Reid's opinion than ours. No wonder people aren't in the mood to carry water for the Administration at a time it needs all the help it can get.

It's like what Michael Savage said one night where basically we voted the Republicans into power to do what is needed to be done and if they don't produce, they will earn a "one-way ticket back to Nowheresville." (disclaimer, I'm not in any way related to the town of "Nowheresville" B-)) The war in Iraq and on terror are going fairly well, I would give them a B grade, there is room for improvement but the naysayers on the Cindy Sheehan moonbats and so on don't count on this one. On the borders, I'd give them an F, on Judge Roberts, a B- (there are still some unknowns but he seems to be OK, the grade can change and improve), Miers, well I'd give them a D. Handling the Democrats in Congress, a C-, they seem to cave in from time to time.

[Itzlzha]

What part of "Let the Lady be heard" makes me a BuSheep?

And, given the fact that if Miers WERE to come out and say "I'm for overturning Roe...I want to undo ALL the damage this Court has done"...just how many votes would she get from the "Dumba$$ 14", or any OTHER DemonRAT...would she get a better shake than JBR...Owens...ect?

See, she's NOT going to say ANYTHING substantive in these hearings...and this "Let's hear fom her" is a smokescreen for "I'm already supporting my "Glorious Leader's" decision, now we need to twist some arms and horsetrade behind the scenes" for a candidate that would NOT be a Candidate if she wasn't a Bush Crony!

See, we have NO historical basis for knowing her views...so Bush says "Trust Me"...now the only basis for approving this choice is his LONG-TIME personal relationship with her...that IS the definition of a "Crony!" Gee, how would you describe Julie Meyers at ICE? Was SHE the "best Candidtae" for the job? Ooops...I guess since Michele Malkin is the source of this artice, it's already all"BS" to you, since she's a pundit who is "Not of the Body"...

If this was a Clinton pic...would you trust him? Do you trust ANY politician? If so, you REALLY need to up your meds!

This "Cult of Bush" is killing this country!

[HelloooClareece]

I am not going to knee jerk based on rank speculation and that's that. I respect that you have strong feelings on this matter but the fact that I see things differently than you do doesn't make me part of any cult of Bush. It simply means I take other things into account. Labeling people when they disagree with you is a disgusting lib tactic and I would hope you were above that.

Like this.
http://presidentaristotle.blogspot.com/2005/10/case-for-miers-when-things-look-blurry.html

[Map Kernow]

So Nixon nominated Blackmun after Carswell? And Blackmun wrote the opinion in Roe v. Wade. I wonder how Carswell would have voted in Roe?

Actually, I think Nixon nominated Rehnquist after Carswell. But regardless, I don't know if Carswell was nominated for his views on abortion. Or Blackmun.

And the basic point about Carswell is that Nixon nominated him in a fit of pique, after Haynsworth failed. Carswell's problem, in addition to the lack of experience and "mediocrity" problem, was that he was on record endorsing "white supremacy" in the 1940's. Sort of like if the present nominee had endorsed having pro-abort speakers at a law school.

[Map Kernow]

It's obvious that there is so much more going on in the White House than we will ever know about.

Speculation is that Bush nominated her because he needs a friendly vote on "War on Terror" issues, not for anything having to do with views on abortion, and other social issues dear to his base. However, as Krauthammer has pointed out, her work as White House counsel may disqualify her from hearing such issues. So, as you and so many others asked, "WHAT WAS BUSH THINKING?" (If he was thinking...)

[ElPatriota]

Yes, keep it up!

[Do not dub me shapka broham]

This "Cult of Bush" is killing this country!

This country, this movement, this party.

It would be sad, if it weren't so infuriating.

[Owen]

The vast majority of conservatives are in a mode of thought to either support this nominee or wait and see for the hearings. I think the FR poll showed about 70% as the sum of these two positions. The kneejerk opponents are a minority and will not be swayed regardless of the hearings (and frankly, also regardless of how she votes on the court. They just wanted to have a losing fight with the Dems).

But, to their credit, the current Miers opponents will also wisely evaluate their best interests next year and act, and vote, to prevent Democrats from taking GOP seats.

And that's that. In 2 months all this will be off the radar screen.

[Junior_G]

Sorry Jeremiah. I didn't catch the sarcasm-----sounds like you're one of the good guys.

[jeremiah]

I don't know if I am a good guy, but thanks.

[BagelFace]

"Aside from the absent Y chromosome, what exactly is the difference between the two?"

Good question! Exactly my point. You need to have an answer to this question before you spin all over it.

By the way, how do you italicize text on this thing?

Thanks.

[Do not dub me shapka broham]

Enclose the letter i in a greater than/less than sign.