Posted on 10/14/2005 11:52:28 AM PDT by Stellar Dendrite
Stephen G. Peroutka, chairman of the board of governors for the National Pro-Life Action Center (NPLAC), issued the following statement calling for the withdrawal of Harriet Miers' nomination as associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States:
"The time has come for President Bush to realize and accept that his nomination of Harriet Miers to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court was ill-advised and he should withdraw her nomination. With 45 million children's lives lost to abortion, the stakes are simply too high to gamble on another 'stealth' candidate. If the president remains reluctant to take this step, then NPLAC believes that Ms. Miers should then remove herself from this process.
"The president promised to nominate Scalia- and Thomas-like justices, but there is simply no evidence that he has honored this promise. Adding insult to injury, President Bush, the first lady and their emissaries have resorted to infantile attacks upon conservative opposition to Miers by pretending that the opposition is some form of latent sexism. This is not only insulting to conservatives, but to the collective intellect of the American people, and we implore the president to put an end to this petty tactic.
"It is absurd to accuse a movement that has supported the efforts of great women like Margaret Thatcher and Phyllis Schlafly, and championed the cause of judges like Edith Jones and Janice Rogers Brown of chauvinism.
"Criticism of the president's choice has nothing to do with the fact that Ms. Miers is a woman and has everything to do with feeling betrayed by the president. Much has been written about the high value this president places on loyalty, but loyalty is not a one-way street and pro-family conservatives are now asking for it from this president.
"Harriet Miers may well be a phenomenal lawyer who is pro-life and devoutly Christian, but the fact is, we will never know because of the flawed nature of the modern confirmation process. By adopting the 'Ginsberg cloak of silence,' the Administration has ensured that the American people will never truly know the judicial temperament of Ms. Miers or any other potential nominee. Pro-lifers can no longer accept this lowering of the bar.
"We must fix this process by realizing that there is nothing to be gained by concealing a nominee's judicial philosophy and temperament. Following this practice has led to nothing but repeated disappointment for those seeking to return constitutionality to the Supreme Court and put an end to the plague of abortion."
WTF?? You posted the tripe (misrepresenting it in the best tradition of Dan Rather too). I was simply adding my commentary . Why should I be embarrassed? I'm not the poster who lied about a poll.
"Are you now too far gone to accept the fact that waiting to hear and given a hearing are the same thing?"
No, they are not close to the same thing.
Especially since the poll you cited says NEITHER!
It does say "Need more info"
The hearing is not the only place to get more information, in fact it's a rather poor one.
In fact, let's put it another way.
65.1% of the FR members polled either don't support her, or don't feel they have enough information to decide.
More simply put, 65.1% of FR members do not support her nomination at this time.
"Wipe that froth off your mouth, boy."
Oh, and don't call me boy. Do you always go around calling black people "boy?" Doesn't surprise me that you'd use this insulting epiteth. After all, you lie about polls and then lie about lying about them.
epithet, even
"So you're saying a nominee like Luttig would have gotten a straight up-or-down without a filibuster, AND there would be no (or few) Repubican defections? Remember, what looks
like a "quite simply, a respected and accomplished jurist" will look quite a bit different after the Dems and the MSM get to work on him. Not enought to affect OUR opinion, of course - I'd be ready to roll up my sleeves - but there are some weak-stomached Republican senators whom I flat out do not trust, i.e. Collins, Snowe, Voinovich. Too close for comfort..."
So why do the Dems like Miers so much? because she's one of them?
Well said.
AMEN TO THAT!!!
"I'm not making up stuff; fully 62 percent of the people on this forum either support the pick or are waiting to hear, quite different from the adamant 27 percent who won't hear of anything short of execution for her."
You made up and misrepresenter the poll - it's documented in this thread, anyone who chooses can follow it up and read it by clicking the 'in reply to' links.
Look at it a different way. 65.1% of members of this forum ARE NOT CONVINCED SHE IS SCOTUS MATERIAL. In fact, more people don't know enough about her to decide than the number of people who supoport her.
That's pretty bad. It doesn't look good that so few people support her at this late date, yet 65% of the members of this forum don't support her at this time.
I call a lot of people "girl" and "boy" and "kiddo;" if you choose to take offense, that's on you.
The lady should withdraw.
No, they couldn't.
Why would the electorate put their confidence in people who actually adhere to their campaign promises, and don't flinch when their constituents call upon them to abide by the platform they ran on?
Why?
Yay! Thanks for posting this. The coalition to stop this awful nomination is growing!!
INDEED! As posted earlier: Melanie Morgan Calls on Harriet Miers to Withdraw
Why don't we just "bet" that it will be.
With that logic, I presume you are downright giddy as all that money flies out of Wash.DC to pay for useless sheep farm subsidy programs and the like, or to pay for rebuilding (again) in the flood zones of Louisana.
And I guess you enjoy the GWB-approved status quo in immigration as millions of illegals swarm across our southern border.
I too trust and love President Bush. I have adamantly, and I mean rock solidly, supported him all thru 2001 (tax cuts, Chinese spy plane episode, stem cell research), 2002 (new Homeland Security Dept., new FBI director, budget overruns, etc), 2003 (I even supported GWB's immigration 'guest worker' initiative just to provide him political cover)
But this selection of Harriet Miers, as much as I would probably like her, is like surrendering your battle flag after your army fought and suffered and endured Dem persecution for years.
It's like the saga of Moses, who led his people thru the desert for 40 years, and then wasn;t allowed to enter the promised land.
It stinks, and no amount of 'trust him' rationality changes the fact that it was a weak, let's-hope-for-the-best choice.
Precisely.
The real lefty Dems could scream if they wanted to, but someone as highly respected as Luttig would be confirmed without much trouble. It's possible he'd get 30 votes opposed, I guess.
"The real lefty Dems could scream if they wanted to, but someone as highly respected as Luttig would be confirmed without much trouble. It's possible he'd get 30 votes opposed, I guess."
Again, the hard left will find (and the MSM will highlight) some skeleton, real or imagined, to give the Dems a good reason (in their minds) to vote against him. It's hard to imagine a nominee like Luttig to be as teflon as Roberts was. The hearing process is dirty business.
But that being said, you could well be right. I'm not so married to my position that I couldn't be swayed. I'm also not ashamed to admit that my original post(#50), which contained five talking points, was motivated by my dedication to President Bush. Bottom line, I'm gonna trust him on this one.
Could you please offer your opinion as to WHY he nominated Miers instead of Luttig or one of the others on the Freeper short list? I refuse to believe that a man of his courage and character would be guilty of cronyism or cowardice in the face of a Dem minority....nor do I believe he is prone to react to polls on such an important issue.
So what gives?
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.