Skip to comments.Lame defense (by the Kool Aid drinkers of Miers)
Posted on 10/10/2005 10:24:36 PM PDT by Ol' Sparky
The patently lame arguments of defenders of Harriet Miers' O Henry-like surprise nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court confirm her unsuitability. She should graciously withdraw and spare the Supreme Court and herself embarrassment.
Fallible presidents need skepticism and criticism to check their follies. President Dwight Eisenhower would have profited from protests against two of his self-confessed biggest mistakes: the appointments of Chief Justice Earl Warren and Associate Justice William Brennan. Ditto for President George Herbert Walker Bush's appointment of Associate Justice David Souter, who was preposterously touted as a "grand slam" expounding a judicially conservative philosophy
(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...
"Bruce Fein is a constitutional lawyer and international consultant with Bruce Fein & Associates and the Lichfield Group. He has published an "Advice & Consent Handbook" on Supreme Court appointments and the judicial filibuster. "
"Fallible presidents need skepticism and criticism to check their follies."
Exactly. And this is a line for line repetition of the Souter nomination. A history of liberal views and an unclear judicial philosophy, people vouching for him, and a general "Trust me" attitude. How much better off we would be right now if conservatives had confronted Bush 1 at the time. I refuse to let that happen again.
I had no idea you are so ... formidable.
That would take class. Class that climbers generally don't have.
When Bob Taft challenged Dwight D. Eisenhower for supremacy of the Republican Party, were we stronger or weaker for his bold dissent?
When Barry Goldwater seized the moment, and breathed new life into a moribund, Rockefelleresque GOP back in the 60s, did that make our party more or less cohesive in the long-run?
When Ronald Reagan took the audacious step of running against incumbent President Gerald Ford, was that a good or a bad thing for the GOP?
When Newt Gingrich and members of the COS staged an unprecedented revolt against President Bush's massive tax hike, was that a sign of weakness or a sign of strength?
I'd like the Miers acolytes to answer a few of those questions (honestly) for me.
The democrats can rest now from their Bush bashing, as his own party is doing a better job of it than they ever did. I am so darn sick of all of this, and totally ashamed of those doing it.
You're not alone. It's doing a massive disservice to our side. Not the debate, but its tone. I talked about this with a liberal friend of mine Friday night. I asked her if she was enjoying all of this conservative meltdown and she admitted that she was. She expected me to chide her but I didn't. I told her to enjoy it because as a party and a movement we were working overtime to act like children.
So am I lady. Have you noticed it's the same bunch (you can count on one hand) who are posting one Miers hit piece after another? It must be self gratification. That's all I can figure. Like a bunch of wild animals ripping apart their prey.
Yes, the little lady should go back to tatting doilies in Texas. It's apparent this "legal" stuff is way over her head.
Perhaps Fein could be gracious enough to drop the patronizing tone and swallow his sour grapes.
"I refuse to let that happen again."
When this is over, I'm taking up a collection to buy you bedwetters some gasoline. I'm sure you in the Donner Party will want a BBQ before you start eating each other.
This is not effective discourse. This persuades no newbie pilgrims to conservatism. How effective is this manner of disputation in closing the gender gap?
Or, if that has not persuaded our fellow Freepers to abandon the low road for honest argument when they seek to convince the world of the rightness of our rightness, then I can only say:
No insult has ever fed a hungry child.
Who are the bedwetters? You Miers kool-aid drinkers are the ones that have pre-emptively given up on trying to get a qualified conservative on the Supreme Court. So who are the defeatists?
I agree with you two. I posted a long "opus" from the miers discussion over in the John Fund '6 more surprises' thread, lamenting the tone of the debate. I can't take any more, I can't re-refute any more of this "history of liberal opinion" crap.
Well, it depends on whether or not you thought 8 years of Clinton and maybe another 8 more years of them yet to come was good or not ?
I'm making a stand. The title of this article in the Washington Times is "Lame Defense".
Moderator, please fix the title to reflect the actual title of the article, and to remove the petty attacks on fellow freepers.
Enough is enough. Can't we grow up and talk to each other like adults?
No trick questions allowed. Drink the koolaid and sit quietly.
Because theoretically-free Americans refuse to grab their ankles for some professional politician who says "trust me!"? The same politician who stomped the First Amendment and squanders trillions of our dollars?
Yeah, right. People need to kneel before such Rulers.
You're a bedwetter, hon. Maybe you need a fresh sheet.
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.