Posted on 10/13/2005 5:47:35 PM PDT by baystaterebel
Well that is a statement of the obvious. And in this case
we agree that the Senate should have its hearing and vote.
Bush is very much like Lincoln harried on all sides carrying out the fight to save the Union doing what he believes to be right all the while alledged supporters are chopping him off at the knees.
And the Miers nomination will in no way diminish his legacy. Once again assuming he is wrong is not convincing those who trust the man.
Candidates are NOT vetted by the RATS. That is a total falsehood. Advice and consent by the Senator is not just hearings but can also be private meetings and consultations with party leaders. There is nothing wrong with that.
But I know that most of the Antis just want to have Bush provoke a huge knockdown dragout fight with the RATS. You would think that after five years they would understand that is not his style. I guess some never learn.
Santorum has been a fine conservative Senator during his service. One of the most conservative in fact.
There is no doubt he will vote to confirm Miers as he should.
And assuming he is right is not convincing to those who do not worship him...(Or Lincoln for that matter)
Time will tell. As for my opinion, and you ake this personally please, there is no reasoning with blind trust. I have given up trying to convince you of anything - but aim to conclude our relationship on a civil note.
To say that tehre is no reasoning with blind trust is not an attack. Blind trust, or "faith" as it is sometimes called, is just not amenable to reason. That is the nature of faith. I have faith that Jesus Christ is my Lord and Savior. That he suffered and was killed to attone for my failure to live up to God's Commandments. That all I need it faith in him and his promise, and I will have the undeserved gift of everlasting life, given by the grace of God, who is all knowing, all powerful, and all loving.
No amount of reasoning with me will cause me to lose my faith in Jesus Christ. And no amount of reasoning with you will cause you to lose your faith in George Bush.
I am not saying that you see George Bush as a god. Don't go there. I am saying that it is literally impossible to mount a reasoned argument against "trust." And you have erected that barrier to reasoned discussion.
That's my general opinion as well. I'm not so much against her as I think there were people out there that were much more qualified and bonified to have opinions much more in line with conservatism.
I'm not going to tee off on her for this and that, but I do have reservations. We're not going to know for sure until she starts ruling from the SCOTUS. That seems late to me.
I think Bush could have done better, and am willing to acknowledge that I may be wrong. We will see.
Under most circumstances I'd agree with the "let the process run it's course" approach. Lifetime appointments have a way of making you at least consider if that approach is reasoned, when real questions exist. When I see the left lining up behind, and Harry Reed isn't my idea of a person on the right, it certainly raises questions for me.
Allow me to use the words of others to express the point I was making ...
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.And there is the report too, that Harry Reid, before the nomination, had been asked whether or not each candidate on the list would be "too inflammatory." Perhaps indirectly, through the GOP Senate leadership. But the DEMs were consulted in advance, with the purpose of choosing a nominee that would not provoke a filibuster showdown. That was an, if not the sole objective of the discussion between the President and the Senate.
You may nitpick my use of the word "vetted," but I think you know what I meant. And with that, aideu.
I'm not sure why this doesn't dawn on others, but it obviously doesn't. I like your comments. I especially like the analogy of black constituents vs the conservative constituent. Quite accurate IMO.
Souter, Breyer, Ginsberg were all confirmed because the Senate "trusted" the president's judgement...Geese using the bona fides of Ginsberg as an example is a real stretch. The problem with her was not that she had no track record it was there and the Pubs overlooked it.. I am not worked into a "froth" by anything but Bush's arrogance. This nomination is a joke on it's face given the ample supply of candidates with proven records. I have no idea who "you people" is. I for one have concerns about someone whose record is not clear and yes I admit do not trust Bush's JUDGEMENT. He has made some really stupid moves of late IMHO and without going through them, that is exactly what "consent" of the senate is about. To verify the president's judgement. If you want to debate the successes of the Bush Presidency lets save that for another thread. Personal assessments are not one of his suites that I view as particularly strong and this nomination is very important. Because you disagree with me does not equate to me being wrong and you being right. It means we have different views of this issue.
I can tell you this, IMO if the republicans don't find a stronger man than Bush to run for president in 08, we will have whoever the Democrats put up as our next president and that scares the heck out of me if we cannot retain control of the congress, especially the senate.
Yes. The rollout of this nominee was the original cause of the problem (although we all have to take responsibility for our own responses).
But I don't have a time machine. I can't go back and change how the nominee was introduced. I can fix the white house not having the conservative ducks in a row, not realising that conservatives weren't actually WITH them.
I understand why -- they KNEW Harriet was exactly what conservatives wanted. They talked with reasonable representatives of the major wings of the conservative movement: The social conservatives (Dobson), the activist legalists (Sekulow), the thinkers (Leo-Federalist Society). All three were on board with the nominee.
They missed the pundits. And the pundits leaped at them. They should have covered that base. But we can't go back now.
We have to deal with what we have now. So be mad at Bush. Call him an idiot. I'm not defending Bush, I'm saying that we shouldn't force Miers to withdraw. She is loads better than Ginsburg, and our party voted her in. There is no way we can survive if we passed Ginsburg and Breyer, but stop Miers (if she proves to be as competent as her supporters claim).
On the "level of debate", both sides are posting rational arguments about how the "other side" have gone off the deep end. There is truth to all of it. We all look stupid.
The FedSoc doesn't take positions. It is a think tank. It provides material to inform reasoned decisions to be made.
They missed the pundits.
They missed me, too.
I'm saying that we shouldn't force Miers to withdraw.
I'm just stating my case as to why this is a bad nomination. I have offered ZERO thought as to how to manage it from here. And frankly, I don't feel like that is my problem.
She [Miers] is loads better than Ginsburg, and our party voted her in.
That's a ringing endorsement that energizes me to support.
It isn't a "point" at all merely more speculation based upon the assumption the President is wrong.
Can't you folks post anything without lying? No one here "worships" Bush or Lincoln. However many understand that there is no requirement in the Constitution that nominees must be vetted by the Lynch Mob.
And of course the assumption that a president who wants to, in effect, merge America into Mexico could ever be wrong about anything is rank heresy, isn't it ?
Who is talking about "blind" trust? None of the defenders of the President that I have seen. They are mostly saying let the Constitutionally mandated process continue and asking that irrational personal attacks on the nominee stop, that the outright lies about the President, Laura and Miers stop, that the disinformation spreading, rumour mongering stop. Those are hardly unusual requests.
This isn't even an issue of trust as much as it is asking that the Antis allow the constitutional process to go forward. The President has done his part and nominated Miers now the Senate will do its part.
There is no trust involved here just a mechanism which the Founders set in place. Those who claim to be constitutionalists seem terribly reluctant to follow the constitution.
I can be convinced to change my mind without much difficulty provided I am faced with facts and compelling logic. None of that has been offered wrt the Miers nomination. Rather feelings are the stock in trade of the Antis.
Might it be that once the "process" starts, that is the hearings, it's too late? Would a single republican voting against her give the rats license to vote against each and every judge en masse? Perhaps not but it might disband the gang of 14 (not that I'm suggesting that wouldn't be a good thing).
I suspect that some feel, having observed the process for many years, that the only time to rectify what they consider to be an appointment mistake, at least at the SCOTUS level, is before hearings start.
Just speculation based on many years of sausage making. I make no representation as to knowing what someone else thinks, merely presented for your amusement and consideration.
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.