Posted on 10/14/2005 7:23:47 AM PDT by new yorker 77
I was listening to the John Batchelor Program on WABC Radio in New York last night.
He commented on the process that went into nominating Miers and added that the likelyhood of her nomination withdrawn has grown.
It has grown from 5% last week, to 30% end of last week, to 50% beginning of this week, to 75% last night.
Fund was on the program to comment on his op-ed piece:
How She Slipped Through Harriet Miers's nomination resulted from a failed vetting process.
Thursday, October 13, 2005 12:01 a.m. EDT Link: http://www.opinionjournal.com/diary/
Of course it didn't! And even after the Bork fiasco, the GOP lost just one seat in the Senate in '88 (they had already lost the Senate in '86 for reasons that had nothing to do with SCOTUS), and got Bush 41 elected POTUS.
What a mess.
Note to the police out there: my offer to gamble is rhetorical. I know that I'm not allowed to gamble on politics in this state -- gambling is evil and only the State of Ohio can run such a morally reprehensible business /sarcasm off
You have support for this contention anywhere?
Why not? You want "Brownie" in the SC next? Bush is acting like a King not a President and this "royal" pick is offensive... The SC is not where "loyalty" to a friend is rewarded. It's a place where "loyalty" to the constitution is rewarded.
Bush is ticking off a lot of good people...
Mission accomplished? Do you think you've destroyed her enough yet or do you want to continue? We on the right are always appalled at the left for their destructive and unfair smear campaigns, but it's pretty obvious to all now that some of you have learned plenty from their tactics.
Nothing in the Constitution forbids it either.
How can it be proved "flat wrong" by just the outcome?
If I say there is a 50% chance that heads comes up in a coin toss, or a 1 in 6 chance a "4" comes up on the roll of a single die; would "tails" or rolling a "1" make my probability assement incorrect?
The contention is a truism by definition. GOP = base; base = GOP. It's a definition thing.
Uh, no, that would be you. Conservatives state facts and formulate arguments. Liberals just throw hissy fits when conservatives do this.
The President must choose the Supreme Court nominee from the list provided by "some" in his party, specially if this "some" is made up of a lot of political pundits.
President Bush is breaking the law by not following the Constitution and therefore we shall call for his impeachment.
End of extreme sarcasm.
Hey, why do you think they call themselves neo-cons?
'Cause they're the new contrarians, see, standing athwart history yelling "when Bush proposes, I opposes!"
Then they laugh maniacally.
(Have you been following this at all?)
BTTT
The Miers nomination may be have benn the result of many things but that wasn't one of them.
Bush got who he wanted --- believe it.
If Miers goes down I hope it is after her hearing, a hearing is the one thing the RATS and the Uber-Cons do not want.
Amen.
Were I a senator at the hearings, I would ask:
Are you a strict constructionist?
If HM says no, I would thank her and vote no.
If HM says yes, I would thank her and ask her for her public writings on the topic. If she has none, then I would vote no.
OK, I am not a senator on the committee. But the questions should be asked. There's no good answers that HM can give that I can see from here.
The only possible way out is for the senators not to ask her hard questions if they want her confirmed.
Is that the way to run a nominating committee? Avoid asking hard questions? HM might be good, but she should see the obvious and do the right thing now. The nominating committee may give her a pass, but the grassroots won't. They're the ones who "get out the vote." We're headed towards Hillary! 2008 if HM is not withdrawn.
I don't know where this Fund is getting his info but you can go right to the Senator's websites and see their glowing recommendations of Miers.
You won't even give people a chance to know who the next nominee is? You mean having opposed a choice that a veritable chorus of conservative politicians, staffers, columnists and grassroots have decried as idiotic deprives people of any right to examine critically any subsequent nominee?
He's not acting like a "King" he is entitled to choose whoever he wants and the senate can either accept or reject it.
If she withdraws, a new name will be put forward and it won't be from the approved list of the National Review "corner".
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.