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

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

[A.Hun]

That makes entirely too much sense. Good job.

[F16Fighter]

A post well worth repeating:

Criticisms

[Mark R. Levin 10/11 12:52 PM]

"Let's be clear about something re the Miers appointment and the arguments of some of her advocates: it's not sexist to oppose quotas in the judicial selection process, it's not elitist to demand excellence from nominees to the Supreme Court, it's not a virtue to promise voters justices in the mold of Scalia and Thomas and then fail to deliver, and it's not disloyal to the president to raise legitimate questions about a nominee's untraceable judicial philosophy."

Grand Slam.

[A.Hun]

Ya'll sure are running out of talking points, aren't you.

[Southack]

"That's your argument? You must be kidding me....that she resubmitted a list of judges picked by Gonzalez 12 days after she was made WH counsel..... No, you said earlier that with some very easy research, GQ could confirm that Miers picked federal judges for Bush."

My point was that Miers was (and is):

1. a long-term trusted and close advisor to/for GWB
2. on the Gonzales committee that selected those conservative federal judges in the first place
3. Replaced Gonzales as the leader of that selection committee
4. Re-submitted the old conservative appointments and made new conservative appointment suggestions to GWB.

In contrast, you're hung up on denying most or all of the above. You desperately hope that I won't list a source, even though you keep asking me for a source for all of the above...an unwise tact to take when so much of the above is readily verifiable (even from other posters in this very thread above).

[thoughtomator]

If we have a devotion to the Constitution we would be manning the ramparts for Bush's impeachment on the border issue alone. Article IV, Section 4 and the oath he swore to uphold and defend it.

[mad puppy]

Exactly.

Besides, it was Matt L. that asked the baited question. Jez, that guy just gives me the creeps.

[thoughtomator]

It's a finite set, yes, because the points in question are grounded in substance and not in imagination.

[johnmecainrino]

The dems in congress want to give Louisiana 250 billion.


The dems in congress were blocked by Tom Delay. The gop congress is going to make Louisiana pay back the loans.


Anyone that thinks the deal in the 90's worked well is sorely mistaken. Clinton left with a recession. The quater Clinton left the gdp shrunk. Clinton did nothing about terrorism which is coming back to bankrupt this country. Clinton did nothing about borders but we get blamed. Clinton's supreme court picks have given this country liberal laws. Thank god for ruth bader ginsberg and those great 90's in congress.


The Gop congress in the 90's was a joke. Clinton had line item veto power and played the congress. Clinton didn't go after Bin Laden after WTC 93 and look what it got us. Clitnon ran from Somalia making us look weak. Clinton didn't want to take out Bin Laden because it was a legal matter to him. Predators had Bin Laden located in the desert in 1999.

The Gop Congress got nothing done in the 90's they gave us Ruth Bader Ginsberg, had anwr blocked by Bill.

You clamor for the 90's but Clinton's policies to wall street set up the dot com bubble burst. Clinton by not doing anything about terrorism gave the next administration debt that he is responsible for. Clinton by not doing anything about energy police gave the next administration debt that he was responsible for. Clinton left the borders open too. His policies helped open the floodgates to illegals.

The 90's gave us no energy police, no terrorism police, ruth bader ginsberg, stephen breyer, dot com bubble and you clamor for that.


Clinton also didn't have 5 of the biggest hurricanes ever to hit the U.S.


If you want to go back to the set up with Clinton then vote for Hillary.

[Southack]

"If we have a devotion to the Constitution we would be manning the ramparts for Bush's impeachment on the border issue alone."

I'm afraid that you'd look pretty silly shouting wild-eyed talk-radio tabloidisms in the end.

Once easy, Illegal Immigration Now Risky:President Bush Builds 12 ft Tall Steel Fence Along Mexican Border From The Pacific Into Arizona, Plus Around Major Populated Areas In Arizona and Texas

Illegals Deported By The Planeload Now

[ContemptofCourt]

1. a long-term trusted and close advisor to/for GWB

Sorry, I don't give points for this vis-a-vis her SC qualifications

2. on the Gonzales committee that selected those conservative federal judges in the first place

I'm still waiting for a source for this, thanks

3. Replaced Gonzales as the leader of that selection committee

Well, that's accurate...so lets see where that gets us

4. Re-submitted the old conservative appointments and made new conservative appointment suggestions to GWB.

Hey, were getting somewhere...she resubmitted old nominations...wonderful...what new suggestions did she make to Bush and/or play a role in, besides Roberts?

In contrast, you're hung up on denying most or all of the above. You desperately hope that I won't list a source, even though you keep asking me for a source for all of the above...an unwise tact to take when so much of the above is readily verifiable (even from other posters in this very thread above).

Please list a source which confirms that (a) she was on the judicial research committee and (b) that she made suggestions for judicial appointments, other than Roberts. And yes, I really would like a source, lest I would not be asking.

[thoughtomator]

The number of illegal immigrants over the southern border keeps going up. So clearly whatever measures are allegedly being taken are useless tokens at best and fraud at worst.

[Cautor]

1. ContemptofCourt posted to Southhack as follows:
"CQ, with little effort on their own part, could easily research to find that Miers picked Judges Janice Rogers Brown, Bill Pryor, Owen, and other staunch right-wingers for the federal bench. She led the President's research committee for those judicial openings."

"Do you have a source for that? It is my understanding that Gonzalez chose thost nominees."

2. Cautor posted to ContemptofCourt as follows:
This piece is from another blog and speaks to your question:

Should Miers Get Credit for Bush's Appellate Nominees?

Over the course of the past few days, I have read several justifications (by conservatives) for supporting President Bush's nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court, several of which have already been artfully addressed by my good friend Jeremy. One he did not address, and which has really begun to stick in my craw, is the assertion that we should support Harriet Miers because she gave us Janice Rogers Brown, Priscilla Owen, Bill Pryor, and other stellar appellate court nominees. A little research reveals that this is blatantly false at worst, deceitfully misleading at best.

Harriet Miers has held the position of Counsel to the President since February 3, 2005, when the previous occupant of that office, Alberto Gonzalez, was confirmed by the Senate to be US Attorney General. Since that time, President Bush has made twelve nominations to the US Circuit Courts, all of them on February 14, 2005, eleven days after Ms. Miers became White House Counsel. Eleven of these nominees were originally nominated during Bush's first term but never received a vote in the Senate.

Terrence W. Boyle (Fourth Circuit): Originally nominated 9/4/2001
Janice R. Brown (D.C. Circuit): Originally nominated 7/25/2003
Richard A. Griffin (Sixth Circuit): Originally nominated 6/26/2002
Thomas B. Griffith (D.C. Circuit): Originally nominated 5/10/2004
Brett M. Kavanaugh (D.C. Circuit): Originally nominated 7/25/2003
David W. McKeague (Sixth Circuit): Originally nominated 11/8/2001
William G. Myers (Ninth Circuit): Originally nominated 5/15/2003
Susan B. Neilson (Sixth Circuit): Originally nominated 11/8/2001
Priscilla R. Owen (Fifth Circuit): Originally nominated 9/4/2001
William H. Pryor (Eleventh Circuit): Originally nominated 4/9/2003
Henry W. Saad (Sixth Circuit): Originally nominated 11/8/2001

Sources: Federal Judicial Vacancy Archives (December 1, 2004 and November 6, 2002)

Should Harriet Miers receive credit for Bush's renomination - on her twelfth day on the job - of a slate of appellate nominees from his first term? Nominees who were originally vetted and nominated while Miers was pushing papers as a staff secretary? The answer is obviously no.

3. Southhack posted to Cautor as follows:
"Should Harriet Miers receive credit for Bush's renomination - on her twelfth day on the job - of a slate of appellate nominees from his first term? Nominees who were originally vetted and nominated while Miers was pushing papers as a staff secretary? The answer is obviously no."

That's simply incorrect. Not only was she on the committee that selected those conservative judges, but she has been advising the President since back when he was Governor of Texas.

Cautor says to Southhack: Can you give me a reference for you statement she was on some committee that picked these folks? Was she part of the vetting team? Can you tell me who the other members of that committee were?

[johnmecainrino]

Clinton passed the assault weapons ban during his term.

The 90's sucked but you clamor for the 90's where our second amendment rights were played with.

The 90's and Clinton switched the balance of the supreme court.

People that are upset about Bush's picks should know that if Roberts and Miers were on the court for the last 12 years instead of Breyer and Ginsberg the laws in this country would be a lot better.

[Don'tMessWithTexas]

I think it hilarious that a GOP president is playing the sexist card in order to get his nominee approved. Glass ceilings and pioneering is feminist PC-speak. This has nothing to do with gender George. It's all about merit.

[Cautor]

"Taking shots at me personally won't save your failing argument. You'll have to do better, and I'll give you a friendly helping hint: mere appeals to emotion (e.g. something that suggests conservatives "get mad") won't cut it."

I'm afraid I have no failing argument. I posted facts and you reply with opinion or conjectures. See my reply to you elsewhere.

[A.Hun]

because the points in question are grounded in substance and not in imagination.

bwahahahaha

[johnmecainrino]

Laura Bush didn't bring it up Matt Lauer brought it up.

She was asked a question by the MSM to put her in a box.

Either go against women or say people are being sexist.

Laura didn't call out any group saying they were sexist either.

She could have been talking also about the John Turley liberal talking head lawyers on the MSM that having been going after Miers.

[thoughtomator]

I'm not surprised at your response. People with legitimate points state them. People without legitimate points avoid discussing substance.

[Cautor]

"I have no idea what you're talking about. I doubt you do either.
Personal attack? Your SOP. Classy!!"

I still have no idea which of my posts or which parts thereof you're referring to. But your technique of not engaging on substance suits you well.

[calex59]

If we have a devotion to the Constitution we would be manning the ramparts for Bush's impeachment on the border issue alone. Article IV, Section 4 and the oath he swore to uphold and defend it.

This may be true but Bush didn't start the open border policy, Clinton also had an open border policy, he gave amnesty and made citizens of many aliens who other wise would not have passed the test, I know 3 of them personally. Did you call for his impeachment because of the open border policy and the amnesty, no?, I didn't think so.

Overall Bush had done one hell of a job and I will stand by him and certainly will never vote dem or vote third party which is the same as voting Dem. I swear all you whiners sound like Dems to me and not just because you disagree with this appointment but because you are trashing him on everthing. Go back to DU, you will be more appreciated over there.