Posted on 10/10/2005 2:59:18 PM PDT by quidnunc
I suspect that President Bush was shocked to find such an uprising against his choice for a Supreme Court nominee. Why? Because it is coming not from the Liberal Left, but rather from his own base. Even George Will ran an opposition piece against Harriet Miers.
Conservatives have complained, in the past, about the elitists in the Democrat party as being the most liberal group and seemingly in a consistent state of launching snob attacks at everything this “cowboy” (as they call him) does.
I think that the Conservative-Republican cause also has its own share of these elitists, those who look down their noses at anyone who does not graduate from Harvard or Yale or even Stanford. …
-snip-
My personal views:
1. President Bush has "lived” with this woman for many years and knows her heart and soul. She helped him find Judge Roberts and the others potential candidates, so she knows what is needed to save this country and he knows this! No other president has ever been associated for so long or worked so closely with a Supreme Court nominee, so the fact that other presidents have been fooled by past selections does not mean that this can happen to this president!.
2. It is bad enough having the Democrats and fellow Leftists against us; we don't need Republicans, too.
3. It is not as if Bush carried a mandate when elected. There are still letters to the editor claiming that either Gore or Kerry really won the presidency, the latter by a bad vote count in Ohio. The media is trying daily to smear the President or his administration.
4. We don't need a long drawn-out battle in Congress right now with a possible filibuster, especially with all the problems raised by the Democrats and the biased media re Iraq, Katrina, the budget deficit, et al.
5. The President may have to appoint two more Supreme Court judges before his term expires, so there is still an opportunity to put up controversial conservatives for the Supreme Court and have the time to wage war against the Socialists in Congress.
6. We lost one election to William Jefferson Clinton because too many Republicans were mad at Bush Sr. including me, and so we voted for Perot. As a result, we had Clinton for 8 years. Let's not make that error again. Do you really want eight years of Hillary and her court nominees?
7. Did the Democrats condemn Clinton when he was impeached? No! They blamed everything on those “mean nasty Republicans” who thought that having sex with a young intern in the Oval Office during business was bad. Some Republicans joined the Democrats. Do the Republicans constantly back President Bush? No! If he is not 100% perfect, we want to punish him. Even 90% perfect is not good enough.
8. No baseball team could win a game if the team was run by what the fans in the park demanded instead of what the coach saw as a winner. Nor, could employees successfully run a corporation if the CEO had to follow their rules rather than what he (or she) knew best. We elected a boss. Back him. The next time, we had better get a stronger mandate (more voters) if we are to obtain an even stronger hold over Congress in 06 and 08!
-snip-
So a bunch of people didn't get their pick, does that mean you jump on the Anti-Bush bandwagon?? Even if you don't agree, you should at least give him the benefit of the doubt.
Pray for W and Harriet Miers
wvobiwan, check out Clifton in the 9th Circuit to see what I mean.
For you to sob like a girl because I pointed out, correctly, that you did not post any objecions to these judges when they were up for approval indicates to me that you're a bit hypocritical in your reactions.
You pointed out two decisions, one of which I would assert is not a liberal decision at all.
I will go there all night, since you proved nothing.
"So a bunch of people didn't get their pick, does that mean you jump on the Anti-Bush bandwagon??"
Ok, I'll stop after this because I feel like a broken record-disagreeing with something Bush does, does not make someone "anti-Bush". Sheesh, I like that Clinton signed welfare reform but that doesn't mean I'm "pro-Clinton". Is there no room for honest debate about anything this president does? It just makes us look like brainless zombies if we say "who cares about the facts, he's our president, we elected him and therefore we need to always trust him unquestioningly".
I respect and admire this president, but one of the things I respect and admire about him is his courage and his unwillingness to tailor his decisions to the whims of politics and poll numbers. This nomination leaves me wondering if all of the pressure of the falling poll numbers, Iraq naysayers etc. isn't finally leading to a small crack in his resolve in that regard. I certainly HOPE that's not the case, but it's a legitimate question and one which deserves to be explored. If you're talking about those saying "Bush betrayed me" "He's lost me forever" folks, ok, I might agree that's overstating it, but simply questioning whether this woman is the best possible candidate is not "disloyal" in the least. And the fact that so many people are hysterically making it so, well frankly that kind of creeps me out.
Now back to Monday Night Football, goodnight.
Here's another out of the box idea. The DEM cloture abuse in unprecedented. Counter it with a recess appointment to SCOTUS.
Not pretty. But bold. If the recess appointment is for a justified reason (i.e., the nomination is stalled becuse the Senate refuses to vote, it's filibustering), the general direction is restoration of appropriate balance of powers.
Pray for W and Our Freedom Fighters
great post.
sounds like a long shot.
Heheheh. There is no doubt it WON'T happen. But it is an example of taking the fight to the DEMs.
The GOP is not taking the fight to the DEMs, and neither is President Bush. But I've outlined a number of ways that could be done, ranging from bully pulpit to recess appointment.
If they won't fight for the Constitution, they demonstrate disregard for the country.
This is raw personal power playing out in a political sphere, and you and I are reduced to mere observers.
I do not like what I am seeing. And the GOP has lost ground. Idiots.
"You question this nominee, but won't wait for the hearings to condemn her."
Did you even read my post?
If you aren't for merit then I'm not for you. It is that simple. If merit won't be defended in the Republican party, then to hell with the Republican party. Are we clear yet?
It's clear you're blathering.
It's the reason we gave the man the job and majorities in both houses of Congress. It is time he actually stood up for the conservatives who went door to door making sure people got out to vote for him. (And who overlooked each new liberal entitlement or spending program he's come up with the last 5 years, for just this day).
Each new attempt to sell this boneheaded nomination sounds weaker and more pathetic than the last. This lack of loyalty to his base won't be forgotten and can't be washed away by some public relations campaign. It's indicative that they just don't get why so many people are upset. The President made very specific promises to the conservatives in his party about appointing originalist judges to the Supreme Court. He has now failed to do so with these 2 nominees. John Roberts, although qualified, is at best a minimalist while we can't even begin to guess what Harriet Miers is. The President asks us to trust him. We did trust him....to appoint qualified originalist judges as he promised. So far, he's two for two against.
It isn't a good sign for the White House that even the original weak support for this nominee is evaporating after less than a week. Their best defense consists of second and third hand testimony and it now turns out their number one booster is her lover.
It is also revealing to look at the tactics of the many people criticizing Harriet Miers versus those few voicing support. Those voicing criticism are bringing forth many valid, logical substantive arguments regarding this nominee's total lack of a defined judicial philosophy. This is not a trivial criticism. If you don't have a defined judicial philosophy, then your decisions tend to change and drift over time. This is what has happened to 5 of 7 of the last Republican nominated SCOTUS appointees. When you have a defined judicial philosophy, as Scalia and Thomas do, you are much less likely to drift since your interpretation of the Constitution isn't visceral but logical. The similarities between Miers and O'Connor in temperament are rather striking.
The strategies being employed by the few Miers defenders are, first try to malign those actually pointing out her lack of credentials. This is a tactic typically employed by liberals and avoids addressing the criticisms. This is often a very good sign that they can't provide substantive answers to the criticisms. The second strategy is the "Trust Us, we know things you don't." Well, that's not how the process works. And if the White House could actually demonstrate her judicial philosophy, they would have done so by this point and stopped the hemorrhaging of support. The third strategy they are using is a bit hypocritical. They wink and nod and say "well, she's an evangelical Christian, don't you know?" Why was it off limits to assume that because John Roberts is Catholic he might have certain opinions while with Harriet Miers we are told that because she's an evangelical Christian we can be sure she's got a certain political and judicial philosophy? (And this very assertion is shown to be worthless by her own resume.....how many evangelical Christians do you know who would want to run their state lottery?)
This crisis is very easy to defuse. Actually cite some evidence (and somebody's third cousin's veterinarian who once overheard her say something at a diner isn't evidence) that she has a specific philosophy regarding Constitutional interpretation. Don't try to demean the critics by making ridiculous charges of elitism or sexism. Go back and count the number of qualified women on my previous list if you don't believe it. Most of the critics would have been enthusiastically supporting any one of the women on that list.....and calling the wobbly Senators to make sure they voted to confirm her.
*bump*
Greeeaat.
Reason 1. "Trust me."
Reason 2. Get with the program. You're supposed to have Battered Wife Syndrome!
Reason 3. Al Gore really won Florida.
Reason 4. Battered Wife Syndrome, remember?
Reason 5. If you don't thrw me out for sleeping with your sister, I'll be a good husband. Maybe.
Reason 6. DAMMIT! You're supposed to have Battered Wife Syndrome!!!
Reason 7. Aw, Come On!!! The Democrats had Battered Wife Syndrome for THEIR guy!
Reason 8. It's your fault I don't love you. You should suck my c*ck, and let me screw the neighbor, and maybe I could love you.
Seriously, Reason 8 is really lame. To use his analogy: If it's the bottom of the ninth, men on first and third, the Yankees are up 3-1, only one out, Mariano Rivera is available in the bullpen, and the heart of the Red Sox batting order is coming up, and Joe Torre brings out Al Leiter or Tanyon Strurtze, he'd have a riot on his hands.
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.