Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

MIERS & LAST-MINUTE DROP-OUTS (Priscilla Owen did not withdraw her name)
National Review Online: The Corner ^ | 10-12-2005 | Kathryn Jean Lopez

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


TOPICS: Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: harrietmiers; miers; priscillaowen; scotus
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 221-240241-260261-280 ... 381-395 next last
To: lemura
Senate rules by their very nature are constitutional. If the Senate wants to enact a rule requiring a 60 vote super-majority, they have every right in which to do so. Likewise, if a Republican majority wants to change the rules to 50+1 for judicial review, they too have every right; they just need to exercise it.

I disagree, but save an in depth explanation for later, if at all. I went around with Huck on this last week.

The Rules provision in the Constitution cannot be fairly extended to admit changing the balance of powers between the various branches, which this 60 vote arrangement does. If you devolve to a literal read of the COnstitution, you can assert that the Senate has no obligation to seat any part of the President's cabinet, or a court, or to hold an impeachment trial if articles of impeachment are sent from the House. The language in the Constitution is "shall have the sole power to ..." - not "has a duty to ..." Literally taken, it will destory our system of checks and balances.

241 posted on 10/12/2005 1:56:50 PM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 218 | View Replies]

To: Stellar Dendrite
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.

Whoops!

242 posted on 10/12/2005 1:58:20 PM PDT by Black Tooth (The more people I meet, the more I like my dog.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MarcusTulliusCicero
Wow! This Miers nomination has me realize that I am a member of the "Vast Right-wing Elitists." Because I oppose this nomination.

I don't have a country-club membership or a BMW, but I do oppose the Miers nomination.

I didn't know that being an "elitists" was this easy.
243 posted on 10/12/2005 1:58:40 PM PDT by RKB-AFG (60 seats in '06)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Stellar Dendrite
From FR & talk radio, my impression was that, of all of the candidates, some of the candidates declined (various reasons but primarily I've heard that they didn't want to go through the egregious committee hearings...egregious is my word for it anyway) and some of the candidates had issues that might make their selection difficult-to-impossible. Issues included things along the line of "nanny-gate" types of problems.

I have not heard of any specific "gates" that would be a problem for any one on the president's list; I have heard that one or more on the list might have "judicial activism" issues from their past and problems with some of their writings.

I'm getting "gossip-gate" fatigue.
244 posted on 10/12/2005 1:58:57 PM PDT by hummingbird (21st Century Newsreporting - "Don't get me started!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lemura

If this were true, why isn't the Whitehouse conveying that message to conservatives?

Because some of those jackasses are Republicans that we need the support of in future votes. I am reminded of an old political discussion I read about, but have forgotten the context of the conversation, but it fits here.

"I hate covering for that guy, he's a bastard."

"Yea, but he's OUR bastard."

Until we have 50 Conservative votes, this is the hand we have been dealt. And let's not forget that "spineless" Frist was dealt this hand by his 7 Republicans of his 14. I am personally ticked at people like DeWine, Graham, and McCain. THEY are the ones that put the White House in this position. It lead to the confirmation of Owens and Brown...but now look at the cost...


245 posted on 10/12/2005 1:58:58 PM PDT by Keith (now more than ever...it's about the judges)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]

To: Keith

Hey, it worked in S Dakota! We took out the LEADER of the Dems. The Republicans would have to be SMART to try that route though... ;) Seems too common sense!


246 posted on 10/12/2005 2:00:00 PM PDT by mosquitobite (What we permit; we promote. ~ Mark Sanford for President!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 225 | View Replies]

To: Les_Miserables
The claim that most female candidates withdrew their names to avoid the "persecution" that would insue from the Democrats is really hard to swallow.

Well swallow it anyway, because it is a FACT.

The amazing thing, is that this thread assumes who the finalists were, and NONE of you know that. I find it stunning that FReepers are now engaged in a concerted effort to call the President or his staff a bunch of liars or spinners.

With friends like some of you, I don't know why you would expect the President to be concerned about what you think at all. You want him to be loyal to you, but at the first sign of stress, I see many of you jumping off the bandwagon, as I stupidly did last week until I was made to understand what is going on.

This thread is just plain disgusting. That I at one time behaved like some of you are doing on this thread makes it that much worse.

247 posted on 10/12/2005 2:01:05 PM PDT by Pukin Dog (Sans Reproache)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 223 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
They are not going to be brought to a vote and, if they are, per the Gang of 14, they will be filibustered.

If you'd have posted that in the first place, I wouldn't have posted to you, looking for evidence.

You've capitulated to fact. Congratulations.

248 posted on 10/12/2005 2:01:15 PM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 237 | View Replies]

To: flashbunny
The 'elitist and sexist' spin attempt last week was a horible screw up if they wanted to get those people to support miers.

They weren't going to support her anyway. I've yet to see anyone say "gee, if they hadn't called me an elitist, I'd have supported her."

It's a red herring.

249 posted on 10/12/2005 2:01:31 PM PDT by XJarhead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: america-rules

People really have to remember to use [/sarcasm] tags on these threads! LOL!


250 posted on 10/12/2005 2:01:54 PM PDT by maryz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: hummingbird
From FR & talk radio, my impression was that, of all of the candidates, some of the candidates declined (various reasons but primarily I've heard that they didn't want to go through the egregious committee hearings

What are their names?

251 posted on 10/12/2005 2:02:11 PM PDT by Black Tooth (The more people I meet, the more I like my dog.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 244 | View Replies]

To: Leroy S. Mort

Oh my, that is a post of beauty! Thank you. Sorry I missed all the fun back then. Is the poster still an active Freeper? Maybe under a new name after that brilliant analysis?


252 posted on 10/12/2005 2:02:19 PM PDT by babaloo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 234 | View Replies]

To: Do not dub me shapka broham

LOL...and I know his least favorite word, too.


253 posted on 10/12/2005 2:02:19 PM PDT by ContemptofCourt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 239 | View Replies]

To: TAdams8591

I trust President Bush.


254 posted on 10/12/2005 2:03:06 PM PDT by FreeRep
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 238 | View Replies]

To: babaloo

I won't embarrass the posters who are still here by mentioning names.


255 posted on 10/12/2005 2:04:06 PM PDT by Leroy S. Mort
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 252 | View Replies]

To: Aldin

uh...no.

just because she is nominated doesn't mean we have to lock step support a candidate. If she is not worthy of being nominated, why is she worthy of being supported as the nominee?

Merely because the president nominated her?

Sorry,I wouldn't accept that if clinton was president, and I won't accept it when GWB is president. My standards don't shift based on the party in power.


256 posted on 10/12/2005 2:04:30 PM PDT by flashbunny (Sorry, but I'm allergic to KoolAid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 209 | View Replies]

To: FreeRep
"but in a time of war I support President Bush, and LOYAL to him"

Don't be surprised if Bush finds a way to end the war before he leaves office. No one else will inherit the 'war time President' mantle.

257 posted on 10/12/2005 2:04:40 PM PDT by ex-snook (Vote gridlock for the most conservative government)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 224 | View Replies]

To: art vandelay

I don't think he's been Reaganesque. I think he's been LBJ-esque. And I'm not saying that the GOP and DEM parties are the same. I already said a conservative has a better shot with the GOP. But the GOP is not the conservative movement. The GOP is a pack of hyenas who need to be pressured into doing what we want. They are job-seekers. Silver tongued liars. Politicians. And with no alternative for conservatives, we are in the same situation blacks are in with the DEM party. Very little leverage, because when we get pissed, someone comes along to say, "Would you prefer John Kerry??" or whatever. So that leaves us in a bad spot. You wouldn't want to buy a car in a town with only one reputable dealer, would you? How to bargain? So I say stop treating the GOP as us. They aren't us. They are them. We need to use and abuse them, not salute them. Government, remember, is a necessary EVIL.


258 posted on 10/12/2005 2:05:13 PM PDT by Huck (Miers Miers Miers Miers Miers--I'm mired in Miers.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 206 | View Replies]

To: Keith

If she is an originalist, where is the proof of this?


259 posted on 10/12/2005 2:05:29 PM PDT by trubluolyguy (I am conservative. That is NOT the same thing as Republican. Don't place party over principle.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 217 | View Replies]

To: XJarhead

no, they weren't actually looking for support.

They were playing the old democrat game of bullying people into shutting up by calling them names. It's the old liberaly theory that people would rather hold their tongues than be accused of being something socially unacceptable.


260 posted on 10/12/2005 2:05:58 PM PDT by flashbunny (Sorry, but I'm allergic to KoolAid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 249 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 221-240241-260261-280 ... 381-395 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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson