Is this a joke? None of these are coherent reasons..
Because, in addition to other reasons, George H.W. Bush appointed David Souter... Why didn't George W. Bush learn this? Conservatives care most about the Supreme Court, because it is an institution that affects the entire country for decades at a time. If anything else, he should not have appointed an unknown for this position.
Yes. In fact we can DEMAND more. We're owed.
If she's confirmed, Harriet Miers could turn out to be the High Court's first justice in a long time to pack heat.
She sounds like a committed defender of the right to keep and bear arms.
More of the same: Except this candidate because Republicans are too scared of a fight and let's just hope for the best.
I hope Laura Bush doesn't find out....
I see the author calls Miers a "constitutionalist" in the title, but offers not once piece of evidence in the entire article to back up this description of her.
In nominating Miers, Bush bypassed a rather large stable of judicial candidates with a strong history of documented conservative philosophy. For what? What is the positive case for Miers?
Many well meaning presidents have offered up "trust me" candidates, who have proven to be disasters. Conservative disgust and mistrust of this nomination is very well founded.
I see a lot of "blaming the victim" directed at conservatives who rightly expected a candidate with a documented history of conservative judicial philosophy.
As for question 7, it sure is interesting how the pro-Miers camp is using those tactics against those that dare so much as question whether Miers is what President Bush says she is; or against those that question why we have to have a contradicotry blank slate right after Roberts, who was originally picked to replace O'Connor and had enough Senate support for that before Rehnquist passed away, ultimately divided the DemonRATs (not the Pubbies) down the middle as Rehnquist's replacement.
Concur!
Court nominees are the President's choice, no one else's. I see nothing to disqualify his latest choice. Therefore I support the President in his choice.
It doesn't matter if I wanted someone different. What matters is he is the President and he's doing his job. If I failed to support the President in this case I would be as hypocritical as a Democrat.
The author voted for Perot? And what is this "put the burden on the voter" stuff? The party has to earn voters and votes. GWB's actions have consequenses.
Do her credentials stand alone?
If she was not a friend of the Administration, would she have been selected?
If she had been picked by the Dems, would she be acceptable?
>>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.
If we are busy waging war against the Socialists, will we still have time to wage war against the Democrats?
I disagree. Most of us don't care if she graduated from Biff's College of Law and Auto Mechanics Institute. The fact is that she has no record as a conservative.
Seven of the nine justices on SCOTUS are Republican appointees. We (conservatives) have been burned too many times to blindly accept a nominee with a history of RAT campaign contributions and no proven conservative philosophy. Conservatives are willing to walk through hell for Janice Rogers Brown, Michael Luttig, Samuel Alito, Priscilla Owens, Emilio Garza, Miguel Estrada or Edith Clement. Instead, we get a former Lottery Commissioner.
The only thing we have is Bush's word on it, just like we had Reagan's word that Souter and Kennedy were conservative and just like we had Bush 41's word Souter was.
Blindly trusting Republican Presidents and playing Russian roulette with these nominations is STUPID. It's no wonder that things never change on the Supreme Court.
Compare that to the Clinton strategy of finding justices with proven track records and nominating. Worked every time it was tried for Slick Willie. As much as I may dislike Clinton, he and his followers are infinitely smarter than a good number of conservatives.
Eleven judges, one "Ivy League" law school. We're hardly a bunch of elitists. We just expect someone actually qualified to sit on the Court to be named to fill openings. We also expect that the President demonstrate the same loyalty to his conservative base by honoring his campaign promises to appoint judges "in the mold of Thomas and Scalia".
The best the White House can offer in support of this nominee is to demean the critics (a Liberal tactic, not coincidentally) or to offer up her lover as a character witness. Oh...and of course, the "Trust me" gambit.
So, that means Bush must be a supporter of affirmative action since Miers is.
"We elected a boss. Back him."
Sorry, I'm not like the Clintonites who will defend every single decision the president makes without reason. I will wait to see how the hearings go before coming down with a final opinion, but we have every right-indeed, every responsibility-to hold our elected officials to the standards by which we elected them in the first place.
Anyone think Bush has backbone to do that anymore? His buddy Alberto Gonzales will probably be the next nominee.
The problem is that we have no idea which of these things is true. I feel the people bashing the President should back off. I feel the people pushing Miers should back off. Wait until we know more, and then call your Senator.