Posted on 10/10/2005 5:55:10 AM PDT by WmCraven_Wk
Qualifications vs. Ideology
After reading the steady diet of anti-Miers and anti-Bush rhetoric, I feel a different viewpoint on the Harriet Miers Supreme Court nomination needs to be expressed and considered. Liberals like to pull the Ideological trump card whenever it suits their interests regardless of the qualifications of the individual. This is basic Affirmative Action at work. When Ruth (ultra-Socialist) Ginsburg was nominated for the Supreme Court, Conservatives were obliged to vote for her based on her qualifications regardless of her radical Ideology. This is what Conservatives do. Now, because of the constant threat of Democrat filibuster over nominee Ideology, Pres. Bush has been forced to nominate SC justices with little to no track record and/or document trail for no other reason than a highly qualified conservative nominee will never see a vote in the Senate. The first question now becomes, Is Harriet Miers qualified? That has yet to be determined by the confirmation process. The second question, however, is much more important. When do the Liberal Democrats confirm nominees based on qualifications instead of Ideology? With their long term commitment to Affirmative Action based on Ideology whether it be based on race, gender, hair color or whatever, it is clear that qualifications do not matter, only conformation to Liberal Ideology. Another important question remains. Is Harriet Miers the most qualified nominee? Probably not but until the Liberal Democrat Senators are willing to play by the rules of Qualification over Ideology, then is very likely that our President will be continually making compromises of quality to avoid the ideological filibuster.
President Bush's choice was simply and outrage, it reeks of cronyism, and only well-qualified jurists committed to originalism should be confirmed.
John (The Traitor) McCain
I heard him the other day on why it is important to release yet another round of Abu Graib prison photos.
Why doesn't he just join Hamas and be done with it?
P.S., I don't know what conservatives like you do, but I believe in opposing and preventing the confirmation of justices such as Justice Ginsburg. Yes, she may have law degrees, experience on the bench, etc., but I don't believe conservatives should stand by or vote for a nominee that isn't simply radical politically, but a nominee that won't abide by the original understanding.
Not one of the 7 Republican justices who were nominated on the court was an Evangelical. Yep, Miers is the one who will change, NOT.
Oh heavens and outrage!
How do you know that the more "qualified" candidates didn't turn the offer down?
Would anyone in thier right mind want to go thru that process w/ the wussy rinos in the senate??
Maybe a strong republican senate would have yielded up more judicial options!!
The federalist papers would suggest that the founders weren't in agreement on an original "understanding". They were in agreement on clear wording.
I'm not interested in justices that will channel the dead to find their true intent. Read the thing and rule if the power is granted under the Constitution. If not toss it out and force the power to be granted by the means contained in the document.
Congress can't expand power by yoting it to themselves or delegating it to an office. The main job of the SC is to prevent such foolish expansions of unlawful power.
Well, that certainly will convert a lot of people to your point of view.
I would agree with you that Ginsburg should never have been confirmed.
However, that decision should have been based on her documented distain for the US Constitution and not simply her liberal ideology. Her distain for the Constitution should also be the basis for her impeachment from the Court today.
I fear that the current Liberal slant to the views of current Supreme Court Justices will continue until they are held accountable to the oath they took to uphold the US Constitution.
So, other than insults, do you have anything to add in terms of why you favor her?
I didn't claim the founding fathers were in agreement on original understanding. I'm also unclear as to what point you were trying to to make...if any.
Wonderful, pretend conservatives (once called RINOs) will eat anyone alive who stands on their principles as opposed to being establishment mouthpieces. You can't address a single argument Coulter made...you don't even touch the logic. I suppose you went along with Arlen Specter being the chairman (thanks Bush), with proven conservative jurists like Scalia & Thomas being snubbed when it came time to choose a chief justice, he selects Roberts who mirrors Souter in a lot of respects, and now he sends us a crony (Texas Democrat, contributor to Clinton, Gore, and Hillary) Harriet Miers.
As much as I crave the impeachment of justices...the GOP just doesn't have the courage for it and I don't know why.
My point was I find "original understanding" or "original intent" as misleading as the living document arguement. The Constitution clearly grants limited government powers and those not granted can't be "interpeted" to exist just because congress passes a law and 5 robed judges agree to the expansion.
I believe it was Jefferson who wrote any power not granted by the Constitution was null, no matter who said otherwise.
Sure I do.
Conservatives, at least those who aren't hypocrits like the ones running rampant now, have demanded that judges who are originalists be appointed to the federal bench. George Bush assures us that Miers IS that and since he's nominated and fought for the confirmation of an uninterrupted slate of conservative judges up until this point and he's worked with her for 10+ years, I have no factual reason to think she will see the constitution any differently than Luttig or Williams.
2. The Constitution grants the President with the advise and consent of the Senate the right to name justices. Up until now most conservatives understood that. That's why despite her ridiculously liberal record Bader-Ginsberg was approved 96-3. Now conservatives, at least those of the moonbat variety, claim that a Bush nominee must past some ideological test to be confirmed. Ridiculous, pathetic
and embarrassing from formerly sane allies.
Hopefully, never. Our senate plurality right now is largely due to the DIMWITS stonewalling of judicial nominees. Do you think we could have defeated Dasshole had it not been for his leadership in the obviously partisan filibuster of qualified judges?
Here we were in a position to force their hand again going into 2006, and GWB backed away from the fight, choosing an affirmative action crony instead. It was monumentally stupid and selfish, indicative of his disdain for the hard right and symptomatic of his unhealthy tendency to sometimes see decision-making as a sort of family-based regal prerogative.
At this point, he has no good options. Withdrawing the nominee would show astonishing political weakness from which he could never recover, and ramming the nominee down our throats will show arrogance for which he will never be forgiven.
He has expended so much capital placating the liberals: campaign finance reform, education, prescription drugs for seniors, farm subsidies, steel tariffs, amnesty for illegals, erosion of civil rights, etc. He had almost no credibility with conservatives on anything except judicial appointment and the GWOT. And now there is yet a new knife in our backs.
Yeah, particularly considering how well the last impeachment turned out for them.
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.