Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: quidnunc
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.

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.

3 posted on 10/10/2005 3:04:11 PM PDT by SunStar (Democrats piss me off!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: SunStar
If anything else, he should not have appointed an unknown for this position.

Bush knows her. You forget this.

14 posted on 10/10/2005 3:11:07 PM PDT by sinkspur (If you're not willing to give Harriett Miers a hearing, I don't give a damn what you think.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

To: SunStar
I think is has been more than well established that Meirs is no Souter.
21 posted on 10/10/2005 3:15:14 PM PDT by Wiseghy (Discontent is the want of self-reliance: it is infirmity of will. – Ralph Waldo Emerson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

To: SunStar

Souter was "known". Kennedy was "known".

Where did that get us?


70 posted on 10/10/2005 3:44:58 PM PDT by Bush 100 Percent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

To: SunStar

I think the Miers appointment was a mistake, but there is one sense in which Miers cannot be compared to Souter.

Souter was an unknown not only to the country, but to Bush Sr himself. He was foisted on Bush by the dastardly Warren Rudman, who said "trust me." (And he, a liberal Republican, could be trusted to hand Bush a liberal judge.)

In this case, Miers is an unknown to the country, but is intimately known by Bush. Bush could make the argument that he knows her and her judicial philosophy much better than he would know the philosophy even of someone we think would be very reliable, like Janice Rogers Brown, Priscilla Owens, etc...

In other words, in some respect, Bush may have viewed himself as specifically NOT repeating his father's mistake with Souter, which was that of nominating someone he didn't know at all...


100 posted on 10/10/2005 4:35:35 PM PDT by Agrarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

To: SunStar
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.

And I presume you are going to bring a curse down on Ronald Reagan's soul for his appointment gone bad. I have worked in conservative politics and the pro-life movement for over 30 years, and I cannot believe the emotional venom being spewed against Miers without giving her a chance to speak. To my mind these individuals are rejecting every bit of integrity our movements stood for in the past. I would ask a simple what would Jesus do, but will settle for what would Ronald Reagan do?
119 posted on 10/10/2005 5:31:34 PM PDT by GarySpFc (Sneakypete, De Oppresso Liber)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson