Posted on 10/13/2005 5:47:35 PM PDT by baystaterebel
White House officials have a message for conservative Republican senators who have expressed doubt about supporting Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers.
The West Wing types argue that she will turn out to be just as conservative as President Bush says she is, and voting against her would be an embarrassment over the long term. This message is intended for holdouts including Sam Brownback of Kansas, Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, and Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania.
"If Miers is confirmed and she winds up being what the president says she is, Republican senators who voted against her will look quite foolish," says a GOP insider. This could cause a backlash against these legislators from conservative Bush supporters at the grass roots.
(Excerpt) Read more at usnews.com ...
Yes that was my first thought...
How come we never saw headlines like "White House warns 'moderate' holdouts?"
another self centered 'idiot' who will allow demonrats to get into office just because they don't like something---waaaaa--waaaaa your stupidity is showing
And you might remember further back--to when Republicans were in favor of smaller government, protection of our borders, personal rights, the Constitution, etc.
Zing! :-)
When will the spin control cease?
If this is true, it would be a pretty big deal. How solid do you think this information is?
According to Senate sources, Democratic Leader Harry Reid has informed Majority Leader Bill Frist that Federal Appeals Court Judge Priscilla Owen will be filibustered if President Bush names her to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court.Next thing you know, we get HM. Must be nice being Harry Reid.
Republican senators are divided on whether former Texas Supreme Court Justice Owen is vulnerable because she underwent a filibuster for the appellate seat and was confirmed under the compromise agreement. Frist is known to believe Owen can be confirmed in the face of a filibuster.
Republican Senate strategists believe Attorney General Alberto Gonzales is the only possible Bush nominee to replace O'Connor who would not face a filibuster.
My point was that if Miers is forced out by conservatives because they don't trust the President that she is good, and she is replaced as the nominee by the "chosen candidate" of the conservatives that forced her out, and than THAT candidate turns out to be a Souter, then the conservatives will feel a backlash from people who exchanged a trust in Bush for a trust in Them and found that THEY were the untrustworthy ones.
My point being that nobody here would bet their house on what any of our "dream" candidates will be doing in 10 years, because none of us really know those candidates.
For example, I've seen some express concerns that Janice Rogers Brown is so libertarian that she would oppose the White House on the war on terror (something that some here would support, and others would oppose).
It may be that Bush figured that out during her vetting, and that would disqualify her, because he isn't going to send up a nominee that would overturn the DC circuit ruling about detainees. I bet that's more important to him than abortion.
When Owens was first floated (for appeals) there were some who weren't sure that she would vote to overturn Roe. I doubt anybody here would bet the farm on her not turning into a O'Conner after being up here for 10 years -- we don't have a record of her rulings in a federal bench, and while we are relatively comfortable with what she did in Texas, we can't be certain that would translate to the supreme court where nobody is looking over her shoulder.
I see this as a pre/post nomination question. Before the nominee, if "all these" conservatives (and I note that the true opposition is mostly pundits, not people who would have been on the advisory list to the president) had strongly stirred up the base against Miers, probably the President wouldn't have picked her. They did so against Gonzalez which probably stopped him. It she was never nominated, the failure of our "dream pick' 10 years later wouldn't have been a big negative because nobody would think about what we could have had.
But now that she is nominated, and the president and several other powerhouse movers have said she is exactly what we wanted, if we reject her and get OUR candidate and OUR candidate turns into a dud, we rightly deserve the emnity of the wider conservative movement.
The reason "anti-miers" folks don't worry about this is because they "trust" their own judgment on these other nominees (or they trust other people's judgment), more than they trust the President, and Leo, and Cornyn, and Hecht, and Jay Sekulo, and Beldar. (I decided to stop there).
I don't blame people for trusting others. I'm just saying we are all trusting something, and given the problems we had in the past with using prior rulings as predictors of future action, I don't put my complete confidence in them.
Remember though that I am uncomfortable with having to have faith, and hope that we find more information which strengthens the case for Miers. I think there were justices that would be easier to trust, although I have no idea how many of them may have declined, or have been rejected by the white house because THEY didn't trust them.
I am starting to feel like I am viewing DU posts. I have to wonder if the ones posting all this "Traitor" talk are not in fact DU'rs trying to piss off the fence sitters enough so that they vote against Meirs, that and the stuff coming out of the WH now is starting to sound like Twilight Zone material.
Yes, they will. In fact, there is going to be a backlash in any event. It is irrational, but it will exist, and IMO, based on the character of their dialog now, the backlash will be viscious.
Do you agree that the uncertainty regarding the nominee's projected future persfomance on the bench has, of its own right, created division in the party? And the uncertainty, of it's own right, creates a "spin the wheel of judiciary fortune" situation? THose "artifact" form the basis for my objection to this pick. The degree of uncertainty embodied in this nominee is divisive. Who then caused this? And the person who caused it - is to be blindly trusted? I mean, I hear you, but it just doesn't make sense.
Aand add to that the likely fact that GWB and the pro-Miers camp have grudgingly, and somewhat quietly acquiesed to the 60 vote hurdle erected by the Senate. "It's a political reality," is the justification. Political reality it is, but it is also an imbalance of powers against the President, and I am willing to go to the mat to fix it, for the benefit of the Office of the President and restoration of Constitutional balance of powers. If our founders were "political realists," we'd still be subjects of the King of England.
I see this as a pre/post nomination question. Before the nominee, if "all these" conservatives (and I note that the true opposition is mostly pundits, not people who would have been on the advisory list to the president) had strongly stirred up the base against Miers ...
This is about Miers, to some extent. Sure, her bona fides, projected future performance, the question of cronyism, the possibility of ruling with an eye towarrd pleasing GWB instead of following the law , those are all valid points of discussion. But raising those points is met with epithets and scorn instead of reasoned debate. At the same time, see above, this is not just about Miers, but is also about the ramifications of this degree of uncertainty, for its own sake, regardless of who the nominee is. Raise that objection, and the pro-Miers camp takes it as a personal attack against Miers and GWB. Pure defensive reaction.
I don't blame people for trusting others. I'm just saying we are all trusting something, and given the problems we had in the past with using prior rulings as predictors of future action ...
Two points: the trust, and the reliability in predicting performance. Given that the "nominee in the mold of Thomas or Scalia" is not met, and the facts of division created by the degree of uncertainty about the nominee (on all fronts), you ask all your detractors to "just trust." That is irrational, and to be frank, unprincipled. I do blame the pro Miers camp for relying on "trust" and for shirking the responsibility to hold up their end of the debate in a substantive way. Not a "count the pundits" or "we have more in number" argument - an argument on the substantive reasoning why THIS is an acceptable pick.
With regard to the uncertainty in performance of past pick, the deviation from perceived and actual ... I believe those deviations are also the result of "trust" and a failure to probe the judicial philosophy. Our leaders have been, perhaps accidentaly, perhaps by human frailty, been playing the stealth and/or deception game for some time.
In closing, let me assert once again, as if it isn;'t clear, I stand up for principle over politics. This is important. Do I want an internal battle with the GOP? Of course not. I don't want a battle with the LIBs, socialists and communists either, but there they are.
Those knowledgeable of the workings of government understand that the President does NOT control the Senate or the House. He "acquiesced" to nothing since he has no control over the Senate. At least be fair in your attacks.
Partly because of the Democrats' success in filibustering appellate court nominees, Bush had a shorter list of candidates to examine for the Supreme Court. Highly qualified prospects were unavailable, deemed too inflammatory by Senate leaders or, as in Estrada's case, unwilling to re-enter the fray.The President backs down because the Senate deems the contest "too inflammatory." Just a big fat disappointment. Why the hell should I support ANYBODY with this lack of conviction to the Constitution?
I am not calling it "treason" lack of trust or bad judgment is not treason.
How do you figure the President is not doing his duty? There is no place for the nominee to be vetted by self-appointed judicial reviewers.
Freedom of speech has no place in this process which was designed to be insulated from the voters. People have every right to speak their mind I just wish they would stop the lying, personal attacks on the nominee, and RAT-like distortions which are the bulk of the Antis arsenal.
Boy you are really grasping with that logic. It would be right at home in Wonderland.
Yeah right. As though YOU could recognize weakness or as you might say "weakes"
Keep the humor coming though.
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.