Rhino?! Whatta talkin' about? Go back to sleep, Berenger.
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
Let's add context to your misrepresentation: GWB and Laura were in New Orleans to highlight the rebuilding effort there. During an interview she was asked about Harriet Miers.
I suppose you can argue that until this nomination process if over Laura should be hidden away in order to prevent her being asked about it at all, but that would sound...well, sexist.
And from Texas too. But still not enough of a Bush crony to get the nod.
From what I hear, every other woman under consideration declined to be nominated, and besides Miers is the ONLY nominee who could be confirmed anyway.
I don't know what Bush will do if Stevens retires ..... he has no CHOICE, doncha know!
"If we have a beef, it is with the gang of 14...and they give cover to the partisans on both sides with their special interest supporters."
Not so fast.........If we are going back that far, let's lay the blame at Frist's feet then. He had nuke power at his disposal.
McCain is leader of the gang of 14. He said he would not stop a fillibuster unless the judge was determined to be ultra right wing. I cannot say how he would have judged Owens. I have no confidence in McCain to be loyal to a Republican fight. He would sooner find his way on to Meet The Press to fight against Owen then be one of many Republicans that supported her.
I WOULDNT'T GO THERE [Kathryn Jean Lopez]
Today during a conference call with bloggers a little bit ago, Ken Mehlman highlighted his own membership in the Federalist Society as a student. Why bring that up in defense of Harriet Miers? If indications are she's not a fan of such "politically charged" groups (even as a political type in Texas).
Posted at 04:07 PM
--
It's one laugh after another!!!!!!!!!!!!
I'm sure she'd withdraw long before so-called conservatives "gracefully" ended their attacks.
I don't pretend to know how Miers would rule from the bench. I'm waiting for the hearings, myself. It would be helfpful to all involved if the people judging her incompetent and substandard would shut their fat gaping maws and wait until they have some actual evidence of intent.
Hell yeah, it reeks!
"I think this pick just shows what the president is truly made of, and that's not a compliment"
With comments like this, The DU'rs are bustin a gut. Its one thing to hear libs talk about GW that way, but we're on the same team. It's one thing to accuse us GW supports of drinkin the kool aid, but Im' tired of conservatives forming a circle firing squad.
Had he done it in the first place, nothing would be wrong with it. But after trying to do something else and getting whomped, it would be a weak move and would embolden the other side to resist, and they would win. I'm just saying I don't see a good outcome here.
And there is cannon fodder in the wings. Myers (9th Circuit), Boyle, Haynes, Kavanaugh, Saad. One of those surely would trigger a confrontation.
Water over the dam.
But the GOP can't trigger the nuke in a vacuum. The gang of 14 set up a deal, GOP-leadership passed half a dozen of the 14 nominations, and figured we'd all fall asleep on the good nominations they left stranded.
They were right. We did.
http://www.redstate.org/
There were several people who were supposedly heavily vetted -- Owen, Batchelder, and Williams. They were also supposedly looking at Corrigan. The rumor is, though denied, that Owen withdrew. The other rumor is that someone else withdrew immediately before Miers. The latest rumor is that the person in question was Williams. That is denied by those close to Williams.
Oh, I have a bunch of of them.
Here are just ten:
1. Make a list of the top 100 candidates for the job based on proven history of being the 'strict constructionists' bush promised. Miers would be nowhere on anyones list before this nomination.
2. Miers wouldn't have been nominated by any other republican president.
3. Miers wouldn't have even been on bush's radar screen if he didn't know her personally.
4. She is a complete unknown quantity when it comes to judicial philosophy.
5. She apparently has not had the courage to take a principle stand on any constitutional issue EVER in her professional career. 30+ years and NOT ONE stand on record.
6. She cited the federalist society as 'partisan' as a reason she refused to join. They are not partisan - except towards the constitution.
7. By nominating a stealth candidate, GWB sends a message that you will not be rewarded for taking a stand against judicial activism as a judge. The message is "if you want the top job, don't take a stand on anything." That is counterproductive and hurts our cause.
8. Her support for affirmative action WRT the fire department lowering height/ weight standards so more women can be hired (the very definition of affirmative actions)
9. Her vetoing a white house christmas card for being 'too christian'.
10. The fact that since the the confirmation hearings are worthless at discovering anything of value about a nominee, putting up an unknown quantity is extremely dangerous.
the whole "golly gee , im waiting for the hearings!" is a delay tactic used to stifle any dissent. she will likely invoke the ginsburg rule, and even if she didnt-- these hearings do not provide an insight as to if she will not drift leftward within 5-10 years. *that* is the worry.
and based on previous positions of supporting affirmative action and the creation of "womens studies" lecture series, trepidation is warranted
Rhino?! Whatta talkin' about? Go back to sleep, Berenger.
Oh. I left out the self-congratulatory part. They were all self congratulatory.
ANd then couldn't get the vote on Bolton - could've triggered the nuke on that one, but the GOP support for that nomination was half-baked.
You refreshed my memory- the McClintock and Schaivo fights were brutal, too.
This is where we differ. I don't see GOP vs DEM as us vs. them. I see it as THEM vs. THEM. And while conservatives certainly have better chances with the GOP, they shouldn't treat the GOP as their team, imo. The GOP are politicians (ignoble charlatans.) They should be used to our advantage. But we shouldn't swear an oath to them. I don't. And if we are so loyal to "our" team, how to hold them accountable?
I'm not a politician. I don't calculate this vs. that. I think what I think and I vote how I vote. If a Democrat comes along with a good platform, I'll vote for him. I couldn't give two craps about the GOP.
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.