Posted on 10/09/2005 9:29:32 PM PDT by BCrago66
I have changed my mind about Harriet Miers. Last Thursday, I wrote in OpinionJournal's Political Diary that "while skepticism of Ms. Miers is justified, the time is fast approaching when such expressions should be muted until the Senate hearings begin. At that point, Ms. Miers will finally be able to speak for herself."
But that was before I interviewed more than a dozen of her friends and colleagues along with political players in Texas. I came away convinced that questions about Ms. Miers should be raised now--and loudly--because she has spent her entire life avoiding giving a clear picture of herself. "She is unrevealing to the point that it's an obsession," says one of her close colleagues at her law firm.
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...
The very name Blaco is funny - in a sad kind of way - because her mental attitude was indeed, blanc, or blank, i.e., vacant, no one home, hysterical, etc., casuing so much extra suffering for the good people of LA. And now we have a Blanco / Edith Bunker figure as possibly our next SC Justice.
And I will remind you that you have to get a constitutional amendment on the ballot in your state to overrule your supreme court. Get your own house in order.
"What do you want? Do you want the President to withdraw Miers nomination?"
Uh.. yeah. I think it's virtually unanimous among conservatives at this point.
"If he will not what do you want to do? Stay home in the 2006 election? Waste your vote for a moronic third party?"
No. I will still vote and vote Republican. I realize that the Dems are far worse. However, many conservatives that are less politically involved will be dejected by this and stay home. Also, many conservative donors will with-hold their checks for 2006.
Mark my words. If Harriet Miers is confirmed to the supreme court, 2006 will be a DISASTER for Republicans.
Glutton for punishment, isn't heee?
I can assure everyone here-with, in the words of John McLaughlin, "metaphysical certitude"-that this woman has never had a subscription to a publication like National Review, The American Spectator, Imprimis, Commentary, City Journal, etc...
Probably to the Washington Times and/or Weekly Standard, but of even that I'm growing increasingly skeptical.
This woman is not one of us.
Never has been, never will be.
Somehow you've gotten confused. I want Bush to succeed, but in this case he's blown it. All the criticism is deserved, even though some don't like the messengers. Nominate Luttig or a Joyce-Brown, have the fight with the Senate, the Senate will have a cow. The people and Bush using the bully pulpit will show the Senate the light and they will be confirmed. The 'Rats will totally lose it, and the GOP will have Conservative support for along time to come. Carpe Diem!
If she feels this way about the Federalist Society, I doubt she could be very fond of FR (that is, if she even knows what FR is).
Well, in her defense, membership in the Federalist Society would get the Dems up on their hind legs. You know how "Dangerous and Fringe" that is.
Still that answer almost sounds like someone who was expecting such a nomination. After all, she wasn't running for election at the time....
I've noticed people keep having to remind you you're not speaking for ALL conservatives.
You're barely speaking for 27 percent of the conservaties on FR, which has a HIGH number of conservatives; that ought to be a CLUE to you that you're out of touch.
Richard Nixon personally assured conservatives that Harry Blackmun would vote the same way as his childhood friend, Warren Burger. Within four years, Justice Blackmun had spun Roe v. Wade out of whole constitutional cloth. Chief Justice Burger concurred in Roe, and made clear he didn't even understand what the court was deciding: "Plainly," he wrote, "the Court today rejects any claim that the Constitution requires abortions on demand."
Gerald Ford personally told members of his staff that John Paul Stevens was "a good Republican, and would vote like one." Justice Stevens has since become the leader of the court's liberal wing.
An upcoming biography of Sandra Day O'Connor by Supreme Court reporter Joan Biskupic includes correspondence from Ronald Reagan to conservative senators concerned about her scant paper trail. The message was, in effect: Trust me. She's a traditional conservative. From Roe v. Wade to racial preferences, she has proved not to be.
I am not one bit confused. It's Janice Rogers Brown, not Joyce Brown, and who's to say she wants the nomination and the fight?
Once the cabal of 14 allow a fillibuster, the votes needed to confirm go from 51 to 60.
Would you kindly post the 60 manes who would vote for confirmation?
The point of the Senate hearings is to say as little as possible. Anything the nominee says can be used against them.
Plus Judge Kozinski got the girl on the Dating Game:
http://notabug.com/kozinski/datinggame.rm.ram
"have marked a lot of stupid words made by doom and gloom people like you for the last four years"
I'm not doom-and-gloom at all. I was very confident that Bush would win in 2004, and also confident in 2002 that the Republicans would do well in congressional elections. I am just telling you in detail what will happen in 2006 if Miers is confirmed. Many if not most conservative donors will shut their wallets, and many conservative voters will stay home on election day. It's not optimism or pessimism, just realistic.
Again with statstics, as if there was a poll.
Did I miss a poll?
Is there a link to it?
She's not one of you?
What a damn relief.
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.