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
That's not source for your assertion, it's the post right before yours.
My assertion is that Owen denies that she withdrew her name from consideration...emphatically.
That is the very object of this thread and article.
It was Bush, constitutionlly empowered, who chose to put a woman on the court. No affirmative action law or quota forced him to do it. It was HIS CHOICE.
And my point is this thread is based on a friend of a friend report whereas we have an unbiased September 30 pre-Miers hysteria account that seems much more credible.
A jouralist says that a lawyer told her that Owens told him that she did not withdraw her name. Hearsay is all the 9 percenters need to substantiate their attacks, apparently.
Umm it was on live TV. Don't you think that P. Owen would want to correct that statement if it wasn't true?
Don't be silly.
Owen is out Sep 30 2005 12:42 PM
By TimChapman/Townhall
According to a very reliable source close to the White House vetting process for the next nominee, Priscilla Owen has withdrawn her name from the process.
With Owen out, conservatives have lost one of the better women on the short list.
What was on live tv?
I think you're confused.
So Rove says numerous women withdrew their names, Townhall reported that Owen withdrew her name, and Dobson was told the same thing, but a journalist says a lawyer told her that Owens told him that she didn't. And you believe it...
I agree with that -and I use the term "unconstitutional" without describing what it means in context. In the case of the filibuster, it is a balance of powers error -- it is against the design intention of the Constitution.
I'm not sure whether it's justiciable or not. I do know thatthe damaged party is the Office of the President.
You can show me no court ruling or any documentation to support your side of the argument.
That's true as well. I am appealing to the design intention embodied in the Constitution. The Senate has a good rule for treaties (no cloture - no way for the minority to cause a "not voting" result once the treaty gets to the floor) - and a similar arrangement is appropriate for executive nominations.
The solution requires understanding first, then the commitment to carry the message to the public, and then to the floor of the Senate.
All you so-called republicans (or are you merely Republicans) who advocate lickng the president's boots ought to be ashamed of yourselves.
/me looks around the room.
Oh, lighten up!
I think Stephen Hawking is still alive, so this is not a personal insult to Bush, it's just a fact that few people put him at No. 1 smartest man.
Bush is no dummy, but smartest man in the world? Ms Miers seems to have a taste for hyperbole.
Well, since we are taking various people's words for what other people said, it's hard to be sure. And I doubt whether Priscilla Owen will publicly say that she did not withdraw her name, because that would be political suicide.
I saw the post you refer to, and it occurs to me that the unimpeachable source it refers to might well be none other than Karl Rove, who apparently was telling Gary Bauer about that time that the other candidates had withdrawn. In other words, it might be more disinformation from Rove.
This gets too cloudy to be sure about, so I think I'll put it aside as something to keep in mind, but "neither proven nor disproven" until we hear more.
Who are you talking about, the people here labelling others "bushbots" and "RINOs"? I think the WH's response wasn't the best to those initial attacks. But honestly, if you read or listened to the things Ingraham and Coulter were saying from day one, they've got a lot of nerve to be complaining about namecalling.
Actually, they're the ones using the whiny Dem tactics. Start a smear campaign, then bitch and moan because the other side fires back. Classic.
More like LAURA'S CHOICE. Why should he confine his selection to women only? GWB may nominate her, but it is up to the Senate to confirm her.
IIRC, the only requirements to become POTUS are being a citizen born in the US, and being over 35 years old. Nonetheless, we expect Presidential candidates to be of a very high caliber (and sometimes we're lucky and they are).
I think the same reasoning applies to lifetime appointments to SCOTUS. In theory, you could appoint a sanitation worker--but why on earth would you want to?
UM--don't those numbers come from a WASHINGTON POST poll?
The bushbots label themselves.
RINOs? I haven't labeled anybody here a RINO over this.
The distinction, and please try to understand this:
If you think george bush is peachy keen in everything he does, fine. That's your right. Maybe a little koolaid drinking going on, but if you want to, great.
If you think bush can do no wrong and you attack anybody who dares question him, and especially if you use the tactics of the left to shout them down, then you deserved to be called a bush bot or worse. I don't even like the use the term 'bushbot' because it's too cutesy. I prefer to be honest: It's doing exactly what the clintonites were condemned for doing: Unable to allow dissent based on the issues because the attachment to personality was so strong.
THAT is one of the key things that has decimated the democratic party. I'm not going to sit by and watch it happen to the Republican party as well.
Pew.....
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.