White House Pours More Gasoline On The Fire (Captain's Quarters Blog)

Captain's Quarters Blog ^ | 10-11-2005 | Captain's Quarters Blog

[indianrightwinger]

I am not making that point. Yes, you should look everywhere you can find a Scalia/Thomas type, including outside of the Judiciary.

The fact that the President wanted to focus on someone outside may have given us a stealth nominee.

[Do not dub me shapka broham]

When did First Ladies begin to make crucial policy decisions for the White House?

I must have missed the memo.

[indianrightwinger]

I don't remember writing a campaign contribution check in her name either.

[A CA Guy]

You have been reading too many conspiracy novels, there is no sellout, Bush knew this woman and felt she could fulfill the promise he made when running for re-election.

She will go on the bench and in a few months nobody will be upset with her, especially after she starts to make rulings IMO.

If people withdraw the funding they would normally have made, that would make them idiots. That will not happen IMO. Makes no sense that intelligent people could be so short sited or so liberal enabling.

[Iwo Jima]

I have never heard any of these things. I think that you are making this stuff up (aka "lying").

[A CA Guy]

I am not making that point. Yes, you should look everywhere you can find a Scalia/Thomas type, including outside of the Judiciary.

You haven't known Miers for 14 years like Bush has, how do you know he didn't do just that?

[indianrightwinger]

Have we not been over that already?

It all boils down to "Trust Me". Souter? Kennedy? O'Connor?

[A CA Guy]

Seems to me the President picks the Justices and not the people, so look for her to be at least very close to be another Rehnquist.

[LibertarianInExile]

"Great. I'm thrilled to know that Bush listened to Reid and Leahy."

Why do you right-wing conspirator types always assume the worst? He could have listened to Spectre and Chaffee and Snowe and Graham!?!?!

Oh, hang on...

8)

[alnick]

I have never heard any of these things. I think that you are making this stuff up (aka "lying").

On Maher's show, Ann Coulter said that the President nominated the cleaning lady.

On this thread, you will see the other references I made: Posts 45, 50 and 52. Here

[alnick]

Yes, some idiots may have said those horrible things about Miers.

That's the point! That is exactly what the First Lady said. "Some." "Possible."

IT'S THE TRUTH!

Then we have Freepers pretending to be oh so offended because they're sure she was referring to them.

[tcostell]

More and more this is looking like W's "No New Taxes" moment. He's ignored the folks that brought him to the dance...and we all know how that story ends.

[Do not dub me shapka broham]

Let's hope no one will have to listen to that habitual idiot Lincoln Chaffee after the 2006 Republican primary in N.H. is decided.

*crosses fingers*

[Iwo Jima]

I never watch Bill Maher so I wouldn't know. If Coulter said such a thing, it was a silly and uncalled-for bit of hyperbole. By no means are any of the things you said are representative of what has upset the conservative base.

[alnick]

You still ignore the point, which is the First Lady responded, when asked, that it's possible that some, etc.

Clearly, some of it is. And I only posted some of the more obvious examples. It's there. Laura did not bring the subject up but answered honestly when asked.

Also, the assumption by many -- not just some -- conservatives posting here that Miers is an affirmative action choice is sexist. It couldn't possibly be because the President was looking for someone he could be as sure as humanly possible would be a strict constructionist and continue to be so throughout her career on the bench. No, it has to be because she's female.

[jwalsh07]

How on earth could you think it's sexism? Do you really think people would be overjoyed with a man who had her middling qualifications? Her opponents have a whole slate of women justices they would happily endorse, so you can't say they object to women justices. On precisely what grounds do you claim the opposition is likely to be sexist?

Take more or less drugs, whichever it is that allows you to grasp reality.

[Dont_Tread_On_Me_888]

BUMP

I could not have said it better.

You are preachng to the choir at me, however. The question I posed was a rhetorical question.

I and many of us conservatives agree. The list is lengthy and Bush has proved he is not even in the conservative radar range.

One word--betrayal.

[born in the Bronx]

NO--precisely my point. Taft was, by temperment, much more suited to the Court than to the White House.

[born in the Bronx]

"Take more or less drugs, whichever it is that allows you to grasp reality."


Your's is precisely the kind of answer that is making this discussion so vitriolic, and potentially so harmful for conservatism. Instead of silly insults, why don't you try answering my questions?

[itsahoot]

It is the Senate who is to be the check, not the President's party advisors.

Interesting, you completely ignored this part

It would be an excellent check upon a spirit of favoritism in the President, and would tend greatly to prevent the appointment of unfit characters from State prejudice, from family connection, from personal attachment, or from a view to popularity.

We are just trying to inform our Senators that we think this applies to this nominee .......spirit of favoritism in the President, from family connection, from personal attachment