My kinda judge!!Posted on 10/09/2005 3:28:25 PM PDT by Pukin Dog
I decided to end my self-imposed exile from posting due to information that I received this past weekend from ‘a little birdie’ in Washington, which I subsequently had confirmed by another ‘insider’ if you can call him that.
You know I won’t tell, so don’t bother asking me for names, links, or further information. I trust these individuals, and have received accurate information from them before and shared it here on Free Republic. Of course, all are free to either accept or reject what I am about to share, but if you know anything about the Dog, I don’t change my mind often, and my only goal is to pass on information that can help support the Conservative agenda.
Issue 1.
Information was shared with me on Saturday, which described in no uncertain terms that Harriet Miers stands as the only nominee on Bush’s list which has any chance of confirmation by the Senate Judiciary Committee. The reasons for this are numerous, and would be embarrassing to the Conservative movement should one or many of the ‘stars’ who we hoped Bush would select be shot down in Committee, which again, if true, would be a certainty.
More than one of the persons we might have wanted made it clear to the President that they would not accept his nomination if selected. You can draw your own conclusions as to why, but the only hint I will provide is that data mining works too damn well these days. What we saw back when Clarence Thomas was nominated would seem like a walk in the park, compared to what would be done to some of our most popular jurists.
Our Democrat opponents have been quite busy, especially after John Roberts embarrassed them, searching for any information that would allow an open personal attack on a nominee. Sadly, many of the folks we wanted badly would have had their lives destroyed had they attempted confirmation to the bench, and wisely declined. There is no one among us who has not done (or had a family member do) things that we either regret, or would rather keep to ourselves. Because none of us are perfect, it is possible that had one of our choices been selected, we might have lived to regret that day for a very long time.
Issue 2.
Arlen Specter is in my opinion, a traitor to the Conservative movement. He has made it clear to the White House that he is determined to protect his legacy, by NOT supporting any name among those who might make it possible to overturn Rowe V. Wade. What that means, is that had Bush put up someone who might make us proud, Specter reneged on a PROMISE to support Bush’s judicial nominees in return for his, (and especially Rick Santorum’s) support for his re-election. This promise was made when there was strong consideration for removing Specter’s pending chairmanship in favor of John Coryn, or an extension to the term of Orrin Hatch.
The removal of Specter from the Chairmanship would have been disastrous, because he would have remained a committee member, and would have sided with Democrats against the President’s selections out of spite. So, why not simply remove Specter from the committee? That would have been really bad PR, considering Specter’s health issues at the time these decisions were being made.
One could argue that it might have been best to send up nominee after nominee, even if eventually defeated, but remember that O’Conner is only around hoping for a quick confirmation so that she can be with her ill husband. Bush was under the gun to come up with a confirmable candidate, or risk a Supreme Court not running at full strength as important rulings came under review.
I am told that Arlen Specter has gone back on every single promise he made when his chairmanship was still a question, and feels untouchable now that he is ill, because any punitive measures taken against him would be seen as ‘less than compassionate’ by the MSM and Democrats, who admittedly would have a field day, were Specter punished for his duplicity. The sad thing is that after “Scottish Law” or even the “Magic Bullet theory” that some think that anything that Arlen Specter says can be trusted. Sure, he supported Clarence Thomas, but does anyone believe that Specter would still be a Senator if he had not?
Issue 3.
Let’s face it; our Republican Senate is an embarrassment. From the weakness of Frist, to the petulance of the dude who ‘thinks he is leader’ McCain, down to his McCainiac compadre Lindsey (tinker-bell) Graham, to the nut from Mississippi who thinks he can actually get his leadership position back by actively rebelling against the President, we aint looking to good at all.
Our Republican Senate has as members at least 7 Democrats who could have never gotten elected as Democrats, who nonetheless support the Democrat agenda whenever they can get away with it, which unfortunately due to the weakness of Frist, is all too often. I find myself wishing Tom Delay would run for the Senate against Hutchinson, just so we can have someone in the Senate not afraid to break some heads to get things done. Why can’t we have a Republican Lyndon Johnson when we need one?
Because our Republican Senate is so weak, President Bush cannot rely on them for much. He could not have gotten majority support in this current Senate for any judicial nominee that would have made us proud. The usual suspects have made it clear to the President that any nominee who would have put their re-election prospects at risk would vote against that nominee. The bottom line, is that the Republican Senate is made up of too many who want the job, but not the work. The only job they see before them is that of getting re-elected to another six year term.
Luttig, McConnell, JRB, Owen, Alito, or anyone else you want to name, would have been defeated, and probably defeated in committee, in order to save other Senators from having to vote them down on the floor. Of this, I am now convinced. Only two names were considered allowable for Senate confirmation; Miers and Gonzales. When Bush met with Senators, he was reportedly told that these two names were the only ones that stood a chance to be confirmed, but Gonzales would face pointed questions about Abu Gharab, Gitmo, and the administration’s policy on torture. It would have been ugly, but he would have been confirmed against the added damage done by dejected a dejected conservative base, and liberal attacks on the President’s agenda. There would have also had to be a new search for an Attorney General, which would have been just as ugly.
Had Bush put up selections that would have been defeated, the chorus of ‘Lame Duck’ chanting coming out of Washington would have drowned out the President’s agenda. A defeat in the Senate would have also signaled to Congress that they were on their own, and no longer had to back up, support, or even listen to President Bush. They would have been free to play the political-calculation game that the Democrats have been playing for 6 years; avoiding tough votes that would be used against them in a future campaign.
So, what’s the bottom line?
The bottom line is that Bush did his best to give us what we want, in a way that will not hurt the prospects of the Conservative agenda. The primary thing that must be considered, is that the Congress can NEVER be put back in Democrat hands, for that would destroy all progress made up to now. Our day will come, but this aint it. If we had a Republican Senate made up of real patriots without the odd liberal in Republican clothing, things would be a lot better.
In Miers, Bush has clearly taken what he can get, and our best hope now is for another vacancy on the court before this administration’s term is up. The current makeup of the Congress will just not allow our agenda to be passed at this time without major sacrifices and pragmatic thinking to overcome the inherit weakness of having traitors in our midst.
It appears to me that Harriet Miers is the best CONFIRMABLE candidate for the Supreme Court at this time. This fact is not the fault of the President. Indeed it is OUR fault. It is us who have supported less than the best candidates for the Senate. We are responsible for Chaffee, Snowe, McCain, Graham, Lott, Frist and other persons of questionable courage. We should not be blaming Bush for our own votes. We selected the people that the President must rely upon to move his agenda forward. If they are losers, then he loses too.
Though they literally suck, we are stuck with these people because we must keep the majority to keep our agenda alive. There have been worse moments for us, but none would be worse than than the day we lose the Senate our House majorities. I now believe that although Bush disapointed many of us, that he did the very best he could do without destroying our momentum.
Yes, like Rush Limbaugh said, it was a choice made from weakness.
But the thing to remember, is that it was not Bush’s weakness, but our own, and that of the people we have elected to Congress that made this happen. Had they been strong, Bush could have selected anyone we wanted.
Because of what I now know about how and why Harriet Miers was selected, I withdraw my earlier statements against her, my statements suggesting anything less than my strong support of the President, and finally, my self imposed exile from Free Republic.
Pukin Dog is back, so deal with it.
What the h3ll are you doing, trying to make sense with some of these flash-in-the-pan @$$clowns? It's like you have STALKERS that just lurk until you post! Have you any IDEA how difficult it is for me to have to look up all those symbols instead of actually swearing? ;o)
If these jokers weren't so predaTorie, they'd do a little more reading. Take my my past post on another Pukin thread (which you paraphrased nicely earlier):
You mean if you write a thread and have YOUR NAME ON IT so people can choose whether or not to click and read further (knowing it's you) AHEAD OF TIME, and they STILL decide to click and read, and are disappointed (or something), they can STILL write Chicken Little posts and depress everyone? We don't have French benefits? What about beer for Laz?Do they know how annoying it is to have to read through all their crap? </Grrrrrr>
THANK YOU FOR PINGING ME TO THE THREAD!! You have said what I've been saying out in the real world, only you've said it better. This is STRATEGERY that's right up there with other moves that have left SOME of us breathless.
There is NO WAY he could have nominated a "conservative rock-star type" and gotten away with it! The RINOs and dims wouldn't have obstructed? Are these people ignoring that many of these "conservative rockstar types" have already been struck down previously?
Anyhoo, I am really cheesed at the Kool-Aid sippers I've been seeing here and there. Yes, we know he drank 25 years ago, yadda - yadda - yadda. I drank AND smoked pot 25 years ago! You ReidBots need to remember -- ah, I'll rant another time....
Welcome back!
Excellent summary of the reality of the Senate with the Rinos waiting to destroy any conservative nominee with a track history as a conservative judge.
Republicans should have dumped Spector from the Judicary when they had the chance.
My kinda judge!!Thanks for the ping to Puking Dog's Logic 101.
Carolyn
The bottom line is, you will hear apologies made for the GOP until we have about 70 Senators in office (IOW, the apologists will never stop). I can remember when we needed a bigger majority. Now we need 60. If we got to 60, you'd hear these folks claiming that we really need 65 because of the RINOs.
They use a moving target - there's no arguing with them.
Frankly though, no one needed insider information to suppose ALL of this. As I have said over and over and over on here on this subject: Those who complain that their favorite wasn't nominated do not have access to all of their favorite's papers, interview transcripts, or the Senate head count.
The President did. We've been happy with all his judicial nominations so far. Harriet Miers help him make to choices. This is a clearly conservative pick. Conservatives need to learn to cope (somehow) with winning.
Furthermore, when she passes she will put to rest the Democrats insistance on a Roe litmus test...because everyone KNOWS she's pro-life.
I wanted Miguel Estrada, but my desire does not mean it is possible in this universe. The same is true for whoever else you like (Luttig, Owens, Brown). Let's live in the real world, Conservatives.
Thx for the ping; good points, as usual, Dog. Stay well.
They won't be after 2006
Right On. I remember well, the great folks in South Dakota taking down the obstructionist Tiny Tom Dacsle. A lot of thoght that would do it. Then 5 more republicians were sent to the senate. We thought that would do it. But low and behold, the Gang of 14 Idiots are now the stopping point.
Where does it end... with 60 with 70?
Well, now...
So you're back...once again...after an opus. This time you have "inside" information to share with us.
Never mind...
Baloney, it would never happen, though I hope it would. If it did, Bush would be able to clean any RINO's clock who might oppose funding the troups.
Republicans are so incapable of playing the games of brinksmanship. The democrats know how to do it.
Bush just got through winning an election where for 4 years (except for the 6-9 months after 9/11/2004) he was subjected to unreserved bashing every day in the MSM. Everyone hates Congress, so playing a little brinksmanship with those paper tigers should be a piece of cake.
I don't know, but I suspect that there are many, many simultaneous back-room deals at any given moment that we don't know about. One Freeper posted (I forget who) that Bush signed CFR to keep McCain in line during the campaign (I don't know whether it's true, but it strikes me a plausible).
So? You can speculate about back-room deals until you are blue in the face. We have worked and waited for 25 years and now with a Republican Senate, a Republican House, and a Republican President all we hear are excuses. Pubs need to get off the bench, pick up a bat and helmet, get in the batter's box and take their best swing.
Libstripper-- wondering your opinions on this?
The big problem is she has played a significant role in WOT issues. That means she'll probably have to recuse herself from deciding any WOT case that comes before SCOTUS on which she gave advice to the President, which could easily be most of them. See http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1498313/posts
Thus, what appears on the surface to be one of her greatest strengths actually becomes one of her greatest weaknesses. A principled conservative who had not been directly involved in WOT deliberations would be able to rule on all such cases and support the President, instead of being hamstrung by mandatory recusals.
The most disturbing concern about this nomination comes from another one of Miers' admitted strengths, her great attention to detail. Since she's been the lead person in vetting all of the President's judicial nominees, she had to know the problems presented by the recusal statute. It's hard for me to believe that the President would have nominated her if she'd clearly explained the statute's applicability to her situation and that it would force her to recuse herself in many of the most important WOT case. That he nominated her tells me she probably didn't fully explain this problem to him. Thus, I seriously question her ethics since she was apparently so consumed by ambition to get on SCOTUS that she at lest soft pedaled this issue with her client.
BUMP!
Also, World Net Daily is known not to be big on Bush!
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.