Replies

Here is what I found on the Heritage Foundation site concerning appointing SCJ's. I do not see in any of this, any Constitutional clause stating that YOU (or any pundit or self-declared "Base") has any right to, or any obligation from the President, to seek approval from ANYONE other than the Senate!

I'm not disagreeing with President Bush's constitutional right to do anything. Bush can appoint a street person and it's constitutional. That's not the issue.

Let me see if I can make this understandable -- if you worked for a company and you and many others did excellent work and when the time came for the big promotion, the boss gives the job to his daughter-in-law, how would you feel? Especially if no one had ever seen her do anything other than be married to the boss's son. And when you and others object, the boss calls you "elitist" and sexist. Do you think it would be good for office morale?

Does the boss have the right to promote anyone he wants to? YES. Is it a good idea? What do you think? And how would you feel if you owned stock in the company and hoped to have a pension someday? Some of us want the GOP to be strong for many years ... and this kind of cavalier pick is upsetting.

I understand why you are upset, and I even understand why you feel the way that you do. What I disagree with is the way some (not accusing you) have attacked the President as if he were worse than jimmah carter, teddy boy kennedy, and klintoon piled together. No man is perfect, but some here on FR give the President NO credit for doing anything good. This is just beyond the pale. I can go into detail, but there is really no need to.

If people are disappointed with this pick, there are many avenues to log such disappointment. Write or call the President, write or call your Senators, call in to talk shows, and write letters to the editor. Debating in a civil manner on Free Republic is also a good idea. By attacking the President on unrelated issues, by stating over-the-top slanderous innuendo, and attacking those that agree with this pick, only those in our party are damaged. Not the dims, not Miers, and not the politicians (other than our President).

I am not accusing you of doing these things, but disagreements within our party do not need to be bloody battles such as we see here on FR.

As to the sexist, elitist claim etc, that is directed at Ann Coulter, Laura Ingraham, and George Will primarily. Some Conservatives seem to think this is aimed at all dissenters. That is not my understanding of the situation, and certainly not my personal belief. If you have read their writings, and watched their TV appearances, then you already know that those charges have some limited viability. Ann's appearance on maher's show was so far beyond what is expected of a professional, I have written her off for good.

Like an old coach used to say, "You win some, you lose some, and some get rained out".

LLS