Skip to comments.
80% of Potential SCOTUS Nominees on W's List Decline His Offer
Fox News
| 10-11-05
| freedom4me
Posted on 10/11/2005 9:08:44 PM PDT by freedom4me
During the 11:00 p.m. (CST) newsbreak, Donna Fuducia reported that Karl Rove told James Dobson that 80% of the potential SCOTUS nominees on the President's list declined his offer because of they didn't want to undergo the grueling confirmation process. Perhaps this sheds new light on the reason why W chose Miers.
TOPICS: Government; Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: bush43; judicialnominees; miers; nothanks; rove; scotus
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100, 101-120, 121-140 ... 761-770 next last
To: Map Kernow
The way things are going for her, she's going to need some loafers. Yeah especially since you guys(buchananites) are making the liberal media lynch mob look like a garden party, while schumer and kennedy sit back smiling.
But just like GWB she is a tough cookie and I think that miffs you also.
101
posted on
10/11/2005 9:34:52 PM PDT
by
Dane
( anyone who believes hillary would do something to stop illegal immigration is believing gibberish)
To: ThePythonicCow
He also made it clear that the President was looking for a certain kind of candidate, namely a woman to replace Justice OConnor.
That just shows what happens when you play identity politics.
Shame on Bush for violating his own position on Affirmative Action.
102
posted on
10/11/2005 9:34:57 PM PDT
by
counterpunch
(Save the GOP - withdraw Miers now)
To: RTINSC
So, if 80% of the candidates lacked the cajones (I know, I know) to face the proceedings, what does that say about Miers? That she has the cajones to do what it takes to get the job done??
103
posted on
10/11/2005 9:35:06 PM PDT
by
Mo1
To: Pukin Dog
Because you were right in many analysis before and people better trust the judgments of freepers who are right the vast majority of the time. But in this bitter time we have here on FR, many freepers who are wrong about the Miers nomination and its "circumstances" will never back down and will never apologize. They will go further with their Bash Bush feast.
104
posted on
10/11/2005 9:35:09 PM PDT
by
jveritas
(The Axis of Defeatism: Left wing liberals, Buchananites, and third party voters.)
To: freedom4me
80% of the potential SCOTUS nominees on the President's list declined his offer because of they didn't want to undergo the grueling confirmation process. So, what were they afraid of? The inflatable love dolls might be discovered? What?
Weenies.
God, I'm sick of flinching in the face of people like Schmucky Schumer and FatBastard Teddy.
If Bush were going to puss out, the least he could have done was campaign honestly this time last year: "It's all about the judges! So I'll nominate a crony because I'm afraid of Jim Jeffords and Olympia Snowe! Reelect me!"
105
posted on
10/11/2005 9:35:10 PM PDT
by
Hank Rearden
(Never allow anyone who could only get a government job attempt to tell you how to run your life.)
To: jpsb
Who is going to refuse to serve if asked by the President of the United States.They likely pre-emptively asked Al Gonzales that he take their names off the list so that Bush wouldn't ask them.
106
posted on
10/11/2005 9:35:20 PM PDT
by
sinkspur
(If you're not willing to give Harriett Miers a hearing, I don't give a damn what you think.)
To: Howlin
It's not the Democrats they're scared of.
---
Who? Freepers?
107
posted on
10/11/2005 9:35:26 PM PDT
by
BamaGirl
(The Framers Rule!)
To: jveritas
yeah, I guess he was really just an innocent bystander in the whole thing.
108
posted on
10/11/2005 9:35:37 PM PDT
by
flashbunny
(Sorry, but I'm allergic to KoolAid.)
To: Iwo Jima
Well, Priscilla Owens obviously didn't think so..........and obviously some other people.
Perhaps some of you all don't realize how ugly this is to the people invovled.
109
posted on
10/11/2005 9:35:39 PM PDT
by
Howlin
To: ThePythonicCow
Yeah, I know. Don't understand why it HAD to be a woman. Fight on!
To: You Dirty Rats
This debate has grown tiresome - people have valid reasons for opposing her and valid reasons to support her. We aren't doing a great job of convincing each other to the contrary.
We should stop the back and forth on the threads and just watch it playout. It will be interesting to see if those of us who oppose Miers will be loud enough to cause this nomination to be withdrawn and/or defeated or if the President will find away to rally his supporters and push this nomination through.
Can we start taking bets???
To: Pukin Dog
Thanks for your insight, Pukin. Bush knows the importance of this appointment. He knows the stakes are high. I don't believe he would squander this opportunity by nominating someone in whom he didn't have complete confidence.
The 80% denial coupled with the Republican Senators, spinless wonders all, left Bush in a tough situation.
112
posted on
10/11/2005 9:35:59 PM PDT
by
freedom4me
(...Error alone needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself.--Thomas Jefferson)
To: BamaGirl
It depends how you define "Top Job". John Roberts for example is taking an $800,000 per year pay cut. Cheney took a bigger pay cut to become second fiddle. Clinton got a pay raise, to become President. So did Al Gore as Vice President.
113
posted on
10/11/2005 9:36:02 PM PDT
by
kylaka
To: ThePythonicCow
Besides, if you read the rest of that transcript, no way was Dobson going to drop a bomb shell like he knew how many or what percentage had declined. The whole interview was trying to show how innocuous was the additional information that he had learned talking to Rove, before Bush announced Miers.
This report does not pass the smell test, nor the accuracy test.
114
posted on
10/11/2005 9:36:21 PM PDT
by
ThePythonicCow
(To err is human; to moo is bovine.)
To: BamaGirl
115
posted on
10/11/2005 9:36:32 PM PDT
by
Howlin
To: SuziQ
I'm not so sure, especially with what happened to Miguel Estrada, and then his wife, during his grueling nomination process.
---
I didn't know this. What happened to his wife?
116
posted on
10/11/2005 9:36:55 PM PDT
by
BamaGirl
(The Framers Rule!)
To: BamaGirl
I don't think this is true. As my husband says, if you've got a chance at the top job, you should take a swing at it. It's Republican Kool-Aid.
117
posted on
10/11/2005 9:37:06 PM PDT
by
Moonman62
(Federal creed: If it moves tax it. If it keeps moving regulate it. If it stops moving subsidize it)
To: Kryptonite
All those principled conservatives would run away like scared chickens from a nomination to the Supreme Court, is that what we're being asked to believe?You are assuming that the other choices were principled conservatives. Unlikely.
To: Jim Robinson
119
posted on
10/11/2005 9:37:56 PM PDT
by
ThePythonicCow
(To err is human; to moo is bovine.)
To: Spiff
If Bush was the leader we should have, he would have come right out and explained the situation, named the offending Senators, and then declared total war against them.Declaring war on what would amount to a majority of the Senate is bad strategery. There aren't 50 Conservative Senators. The non-Conservative GOP Senators hold the balance of power in the Senate. They plus the 'Rats make a majority.
120
posted on
10/11/2005 9:38:09 PM PDT
by
You Dirty Rats
(Lashed to the USS George W. Bush: "Damn the Torpedos, Full Miers Ahead!!")
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100, 101-120, 121-140 ... 761-770 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson