Posted on 10/14/2005 7:23:47 AM PDT by new yorker 77
Sorry... I meant post #303, not #295.
Ok, I guess we've beat this dead horse long enough.
Thanks
Are you joking? 95%?
George W. Bush would destroy his presidency if he withdrew (or caused to have withdrawn) Miers' nomination before she even got a chance to make her own case at the hearings. It won't happen, ever. 0% chance.
I don't know where Fund came up with the bad PCP he's smoking, but if he truly said what the original poster says he said, it's no wonder the guy has more or less dropped off the face of the earth the past couple of years. Well, okay, there was that kinky sex scandal, too....
How(Michael Brown is not a lawyer)lin had nothing to do with researching Dan Rather's fraud, as one can easily see by examining the thread where Buckhead made his brilliant analysis. She was simply Buckhead's interlocutor.
And, just as she's done on this thread, she certainly does engage in personal insults with whoever disagrees with her, and has developed a well deserved and undesirable reputation in that regard.
Of course you'd have nothing nice to say about her.
Not surprised, beckett.
That was exclusively the doing of George W. Bush.
I don't see why Fund would be taking aim at peripheral targets.
I said I was wrong, you dimwit.
and has developed a well deserved and undesirable reputation in that regard.
A person is known by their enemies; I'm fine with who mine are on this site.
In fact, I'd be worried to death if you did like me.
I agree with you completely. I think with the Internet, Governors appointing Senators could be closely monitored. It will never happen. We could enforce term limits, and that would have many positive effects.
LLS
Amazing. You think citizens need to be "delegated" the power to instruct their servants. THE CITIZENS ARE THE ONES DOING THE DELEGATING. What do you think the first three words of the Constitution are supposed to indicate?
That does not mean, however, that, as citizens, we have every right to contact our Senators and urge them to vote against the nominee--once the Constitutional process has been followed.
So it's fine for citizens to instruct Senators to do something that's perfectly constitutional, but not kosher at all for them to instruct the President to do something that's perfectly constitutional?
Well, that's what this alleged "power grab" you're talking about consists of, in its entirety - people commenting.
But that's the whole "if" that's under discussion here. Her own assurance that she's a strict constructionist is meaningless without any kind of context. If she can't identify a single decision of the court that doesn't fall within the parameters of "strict constructionism", then it's no more indicative of how she'd vote to rule, than a vague assurance that she'll be "faithful to the Constitution" (as if there's a single judge who doesn't claim to be).
The problem of her having been a Democrat, or more pertinently, of her having no record indicating that she's a conservative thinker, is that it doesn't bode well for her being a faithful constitutionalist. Liberals and even centrists find the Constitution as it stands rather unsettling, because it doesn't let them do what they want politically. Although it's perfectly possible in theory that a liberal might do right by the Constitution despite having to constantly rule against her views of right and wrong, this has not been borne out by experience. The only justices who've consistently upheld the document are conservatives, not just because they happen to agree with it, but also because they're motivated more by critical thinking than by feelings. (there's a great quote I found while surfing online, that I put at the bottom of my profile page; it's applicable here)
In a few days I may post why I can't wrap my hands around the possibility of a "good" outcome involving Bush withdrawing the nomination under pressure from his base.
A good enough outcome for me would be the nomination of someone like Janice Rogers Brown. If Republicans fight intelligently, and force the Democrats to bring some of those "unexamined prejudices" that Burnham mentioned out into the open, they could really do some damage to the Dems.
"That does not mean, however, that, as citizens, we have every right to contact our Senators and urge them to vote against the nominee--once the Constitutional process has been followed."
Clearly, that paragraph should have read:
"That does not mean, however, that, as citizens we do not have every right to contact our Senators . . . ."
To answer your question, my intent in this post was to suggest that the Constitution prescribes a process for seating justices. It also prescribes the sole authority for naming as being the Executive (President). Then, it prescribes the sequence of the process, which specifies that after the President nominates, the Senate is to perform its role. That role is described in Federalist 76 as being one of "cooperation and concurrence." We must notice here that Federalist 76 (the Framers' own explanation of their Constitution) points out the reasons why the prescribed process did not include a provision for citizen group pressure on a President to withdraw or change his nominee. As a matter of fact, here is an excerpt from No. 76:
"I proceed to lay it down as a rule, that one man of discernment is better fitted to analyze and estimate the peculiar qualities adapted to particular offices, than a body of men of equal or perhaps even of superior discernment.
"The sole and undivided responsibility of one man will naturally beget a livelier sense of duty and a more exact regard to reputation. He will, on this account, feel himself under stronger obligations, and more interested to investigate with care the qualities requisite to the stations to be filled, and to prefer with impartiality the persons who may have the fairest pretensions to them. He will have FEWER personal attachments to gratify, than a body of men who may each be supposed to have an equal number; and will be so much the less liable to be misled by the sentiments of friendship and of affection. A single well-directed man, by a single understanding, cannot be distracted and warped by that diversity of views, feelings, and interests, which frequently distract and warp the resolutions of a collective body. There is nothing so apt to agitate the passions of mankind as personal considerations whether they relate to ourselves or to others, who are to be the objects of our choice or preference. Hence, in every exercise of the power of appointing to offices, by an assembly of men, we must expect to see a full display of all the private and party likings and dislikes, partialities and antipathies, attachments and animosities, which are felt by those who compose the assembly. The choice which may at any time happen to be made under such circumstances, will of course be the result either of a victory gained by one party over the other, or of a compromise between the parties. In either case, the intrinsic merit of the candidate will be too often out of sight. In the first, the qualifications best adapted to uniting the suffrages of the party, will be more considered than those which fit the person for the station. In the last, the coalition will commonly turn upon some interested equivalent: 'Give us the man we wish for this office, and you shall have the one you wish for that.' This will be the usual condition of the bargain. And it will rarely happen that the advancement of the public service will be the primary object either of party victories or of party negotiations."
My point was and is that we who claim "conservatism" as our banner should want to be certain that we adhere strictly to the provisions and prescriptions of our Constitution, or we risk losing credibility. After all, we have spent years criticizing the Left (what we also call "liberals") for wanting to bypass the Constitution's provisions (prescriptions) if things don't suit them. We certainly don't want to be guilty of doing the same thing, do we?
The Founders had a long view. Their concern was not with the fickle opinions of their contemporaries as much as with how posterity would judge them. Their process recognized that it is the President's reputation in the history of liberty that is at stake here. Only they will be able to judge whether he preserved their liberty by naming a justice who would strictly interpret the Founders' Constitution.
The "sequence" is that the President nominates, then appoints when he gets the Senate's consent. There is nothing unconstitutional about withdrawing a nomination - that is, refusing to appoint after said nomination has been made. Doing so does not "bypass" the Constitution; it's simply another equally constitutional option available to him. Therefore, it likewise does not "bypass" the Constitution when the people instruct him to do exactly that.
We must notice here that Federalist 76 (the Framers' own explanation of their Constitution) points out the reasons why the prescribed process did not include a provision for citizen group pressure on a President to withdraw or change his nominee.
The Constitution does contain such a provision:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
It's the people's preexisting right to pressure their public officers to do whatever they want them to do. No one's saying that these officers are constitutionally bound to obey (therefore Hamilton's concerns are satisfied), but it violates neither the spirit nor letter of the Constitution for the people to issue these instructions.
No,you're wrong. She should've never been named. The Predsident excuted poor, poor judgment in naming her and now he's put his allies in a tough position. They want to oppose him in their advise and consent capacity bu they fear political retribution from the President's machine. And the Democrats are likley to let her through because they know she is tearing the bases apart. I hope the Republicans on the Hill have the courage to oppose her and sink her nomination-- because she is plainly unqualified. She shouldn't have to be doing a crash course in the Constitution...this all just shouldn't be happening. That it is does no kindness to Bush's eternal legacy.
"It's more like 95% that she'll be withdrawn. Common sense tells you as much."--Deo et Patria
"So, if she's not withdrawn, will you admit to not having any common sense?"--Howlin
What say you now, Howlin? Just checking in.
Unlike Clinton, Bush took all the heat and never betrayed her. He never blinked.
It pays to listen to Conservative Talk Radio programs like The John Batchelor Program.
I saw the withdrawal of Miers coming two weeks before it happened.
All the FAKE NEWS from the MSM was a combination of hearsay and opinion. That is a ll they ever do.
I am just surprised that it didn't happen sooner. The Miers backlash was getting worse every day.
But the Miers nomination was leading into a bad news cycle.
All the FAKE NEWS of 22 Indictments from Professional Liars like Lawrence O'Donnell, whose ego is as fat as his distant cousin Rosie, got in the way.
It was timed for Thursday to wrap itself around the media frenzy over the non-story that is Wilson, my wife is not covert,gate.
It was not planned from the beginning to do this. It was a hasty choice mad by people who should have known better.
Thank God they knew enough to pull it when they did.
NOW WE UNITE AND FIGHT.
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.