Speaking of the Godfather--
Bush:"We're gonna make them an offer they can't refuse."
Rove:"This is a message from George W Corleone!!!!"
Posted on 10/12/2005 12:26:51 PM PDT by Stellar Dendrite
MIERS & LAST-MINUTE DROP-OUTS [Kathryn Jean Lopez] A journalist friend just spoke with a top Texas lawyer who spoke with Priscilla Owen last week. He says that she "most emphatically" did not withdraw her name from consideration to the Court. If the White House spin is that Harriet Miers got the job because nobody else wanted it, it would seem that the White House is at a desperation point. Posted at 12:07 PM
Your good!
"but I think he [dobson] should NOT inveigle himself in internal Washington pr wars.
"Even if they would have filibustered, so what?"
Ok, let's think this through. You can't get Miers through. Good or bad, it's a reality. Who's next?
Al Gonzales? I can tell you, it won't encouraged anyone, conservative or otherwise, who was THINKING of putting themselves forward as a candidate, to put themselves through what Rush has accurately described as a long drawn out public anal exam.
Seriously...if that is the outcome with a nominee that many of the CONSERVATIVES are opposed to, how likely is it really that you would get a second nominee MORE conservative.
I'm not saying that is how it should be. It's like that old Jack Nicholson movie..."It's doesn't have to make sense. It's Chinatown."
"It's Washington."
Good idea. Let's get rid of Bayh ;)
"The wingers and their unnamed sources...... LOL"
Just like the 2nd and 3rd hand reports of her bonafides, eh?
"My hearsay can beat your hearsay!"
Then at least 1 is changing his tune from earlier in the year.
GOP leaders, sensing the Democrats' bind, expressed confidence yesterday that the Senate will confirm Bush's eventual nominee, no matter how ideologically rigid. "I think there is every expectation, every reason to believe that there will be no successful filibuster," Majority Whip Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said on "Fox News Sunday."Under the "Gang of 14" accord, the seven Republican signers agreed to deny Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) the votes he needed to carry out his threat to bar judicial filibusters by changing Senate rules. The seven are implicitly released from the deal if the Democratic signers renege on their end. Yesterday, key players suggested the seven Democrats will automatically be in default if they contend a nominee's ideological views constitute "extraordinary circumstances" that would justify a filibuster.
Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.), one of the 14 signers, noted that the accord allowed the confirmation of three Bush appellate court nominees so conservative that Democrats had successfully filibustered them for years: Janice Rogers Brown, William H. Pryor Jr. and Priscilla R. Owen. Because Democrats accepted them under the deal, Graham said on the Fox program, it is clear that ideological differences will not justify a filibuster of a Supreme Court nominee.
"Based on what we've done in the past with Brown, Pryor and Owen," Graham said, "ideological attacks are not an 'extraordinary circumstance.' To me, it would have to be a character problem, an ethics problem, some allegation about the qualifications of the person, not an ideological bent."
Sen. Ben Nelson (Neb.), a leader of the seven Democratic signers, largely concurred. Nelson "would agree that ideology is not an 'extraordinary circumstance' unless you get to the extreme of either side," his spokesman, David DiMartino, said in an interview.
Pact May Hinder Efforts to Block High Court Nominee
By Charles Babington and Susan Schmidt
Washington Post Staff Writers
Monday, July 4, 2005; Page A01
BWHAHAHAHAHA!!! You owe me a new monitor!!
That is how insane this nomination really is.
Karen Williams also did not decline...
Some Supreme Court candidates withdrew from consideration but that had nothing to do with President George W. Bush's eventual selection of White House lawyer Harriet Miers, the White House said on Wednesday.
White House spokesman Scott McClellan confirmed what conservative Christian leader James Dobson told his radio program about an October 1 telephone conversation he had had with top White House aide Karl Rove, in which Rove tried to convince Dobson to support Miers for the Supreme Court.
A senior administration official said it was "just a couple" of candidates who had withdrawn from consideration.
As KLo put it, Miers was what the WH had to offer---take it or leave it! I'm leaving it.
Does anyone have any facts yet or are all us FReepers still chasing around rumor and innuendo like a couple of neighbors over the back fence?
If Miers is willing to solemnly swear that she will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that she will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon her as a justice under the Constitution and laws of the United States, what reason can be offered for opposing her?
Well that would seem to put a major hitch into that getalong then wouldn't it?
The same reasons that would be proffered if I had been nominated?
I've been saying for a while that if she is looking at the current situation, maybe she'll fall on her sword for the good of the party and the administration.
I agree.
Conservatives have been waiting decades for this opportunity. Frankly her"word" isn't good enough. We need someone with a brilliant constitutional record as a federal judge. No more no less, bye bye Ms. Miers
Your correct. Pukin dog sad 3 withdrew, and 1 was unqualified due to background. Sheesh. Where do people come up with the exxageration that ALL of the qualified candidates withdrew. Clearly, 3 of 4 is not ALL.
Hey buddy, I didn't care then what they said, and I don't care now. If someone wants to apologize, fine. I wont stay up nights waiting for it. And just to clear up the current dispute:THE SHORT LIST WAS 5 WOMEN, 3 declined, 1 was disqualified on her history, and Miers was left holding the trophy.
Ya think anyone will believe me now? I wont hold my breath.
What history would disqualify them that wasn't already brought up during the confirmation hearings for the Appeals Court?? Here's my guess, some random woman under consideration - maybe even two of them - who haven't gone through recent confirmation, much less an acrimonious confirmation, were disqualified on the basis of some vague past allegation, and the White House is spinning these statements based on that.
Yeah, I don't trust the WH. I guess that's obvious..
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.