Posted on 10/09/2005 9:10:09 AM PDT by Crackingham
We will forever have stealth, wait-and-see, trust-me kinds of nominations. Qualified candidates who in their past had been open and articulate in their judicial philosophy will be passed over for risky appointees with no background or record."
Very much agreed. I've made similar comments myself.
FWIW, I understand that she is very family oriented. She takes care of an aged mother and is very involved with her nephews (I'm not sure if it was nephews, or nephews and nieces). It may not be the same as having children of your own, but she does have a family with which she is very much involved.
We will forever have stealth, wait-and-see, trust-me kinds of nominations. Qualified candidates who in their past had been open and articulate in their judicial philosophy will be passed over for risky appointees with no background or record.
It is a concession to the Democrats: We would rather avoid their criticism than stand for what we believe.
NOWHERE in that disappointment did you mention the qualifications of Ms. Miers. Plenty of people have expressed that rationale for being disappointed. Your expression is, IMO, one of the best stated for the point of view.
The point of view you expressed has not been substantively attacked.
- bump -
P.S. Record setting game of baseball - Astros and Braves in the 18th! inning.
By selecting Miers, we are sending a message to the Dems which implies we are scared to death to nominate and fight for a real strong conservative.
Make no mistake. This will come back to haunt the GOP in years to come.
The Dems now know they can intimidate us Republicans into putting up stealth candidates in which we cross our fingers and hope for the best.
I think this is why the promotion of a sitting justice to chief is a better political move than an outsider.
The CJ nominee sort of powers a way through for the much more important AJ nominee that nets us another vote.
What are you mumbling about? I'm supporting Miers. You sure you ain't a troll?
Thank you, but in this particular case, I know that wouldn't be helpful. I do appreciate your concern and advice though.
I think you're correct. I do believe she may pleasantly surprise all but red meat nay sayers. Yes, I , like you, would have prefered someone a little more well known, but, I think this may be a shrewd poker play by a man who doesn't lose .
I think bashing Miers with no to little foundation, and worse, based on statements from the Left of all places, is really short sighted at its best.
Thanks for the thoughts.
You naysayers are the ones who aren't "getting it".
Scalia says having a Justice on the court who has no previous judicial experience would be a good thing. Roberts had been a FEDERAL JUDGE before being elevated to the SC, so he couldn't have been referring to him. Given the highly publicized controversy over Bush's current nominee, the only person he can be talking about is Harriet Miers.
But why should we give any weight to Scalia's opinion anyway? We can just take the word of renowned Constitutional "experts" like Coulter and elitist Hahvahd graduate Bill Kristol that Ms. Miers is nothing more than an ignorant fundamentalist Christian from TX who doesn't know the difference between the Constitution and a bass fiddle. If Ms. Miers had happened to be a well bred, Ivy League educated graduate of the Hahvahd law school, and a Unitarian agnostic just for good measure, those same elitist snobs would be singing her praises from the top of the Capitol Building.
At every stage of Scalia's life he accomplished more than I did. As hard as my personal shortcomings are to swallow, he is a better man than me in many ways. I want such persons on the SC, not mediocrities.
You know, there is no one more elitist or a clubby insider than this Bush crony. Talk about a well connected Texas schmoozer, they don't come any bigger than Miers. Get off this elitist crap.
No, it is the left that has come out in her defense. Some of us base our opposition on the emptiness of the suit before us. A blank resume speaks volumes.
Ditto that. It's not simply a matter of what school you went to---it's also a matter of what you managed to do with what you learned in school that counts.
I've had it up to here with this "elitism" talk, particularly given the cynicism and hypocrisy of the people making the charge: Harriet Miers isn't an "elitist" pick in the most narrow sense of the word, as being chosen from the "elite" of Bush's White House Staff and---pardon the expression...it's more just than the term "elitist"---cronies?
Yeah, she's a deeep plant in the Bush family. Thanks for blowing her cover. Of course, Bush is too stupid to know that a close confidant of his is really a liberal and has been pulling the wool over his eyes for the past 20 years.
No, it is the Left who is playing this for all it is worth, giddy with the delight that the "true and principled" would come from their lairs and rip up the non ideal. They aren't defending her, they are playing to the go,Pat, go crowd and doing a damn fine job of it, playing the "true and principled" likea fiddle.
You are so wrong. And I can say they would not get approved. All they need is the "conservative" label and they're toast.
You call it defeatist, I call it realistic.
Misread your post...thought you wrote Harriet is not qualified.
Please forgive....I am not a troll, but feel like one about now...
Do you remember what their problem with Cheney was? It couldn't have been that he wasn't conservative enough. Too old? Or was it the one that the media tossed around: Recycled from his dad's administration? I remember rolling my eyes at that one.
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.