Posted on 10/16/2005 12:08:21 PM PDT by Westpole
President Bush has blundered badly with the nomination of Harriet Miers. It isn't just the profound split within the Republican Party that is damaging. The presidency itself is weakened because his judgment is now doubted within his own camp.
The Democrats always doubted his judgment, indeed his intellect. Now the same doubts are being expressed on the right. What is it about this nomination that can so undermine the presidency? The main problem with Ms. Miers nomination can be summed up simply - she is a "weak sister".
People respect bold action even when they don't agree with it. The Democrats mostly voted for the war in Iraq even though they opposed it. A bold move by a President will usually be deferred to. But there is nothing bold in this nomination. The very character of the nominee that is emerging is that of a follower not a leader.
Some may believe the strength of the opposition to Miers comes from people with misgivings about her views on Roe or her clandestine leanings on any number of other issues. But that is not what is giving the Bush presidency problems. Mr. Bush could have gone in one of two other directions;
If he nominated a conservative intellectual leader the right would have cheered and the left would have played the same cards they have over other conservative judicial nominees. Their opposition would only have made the President look stronger not weaker. Had Mr. Bush nominated say a leader with centrists or even liberal views the right may have objected but he could claim that "balance" on the court is a an important principal for American stability and his willings to put stability over his party's wishes would have made him look bold and certainly in the media wise. In either case the president would be a bold thoughtful leader but Mr. Bush did neither. He nominated a camp follower, a weak sister whose best quality is her loyalty to him. If confirmed the Democrats would hope the loyalty was binding as long as it was convenient. Whereas the right would hope she would just follow Justices Scalia and Thomas. So what Mr. Bush has done is force both sides to wonder which leader this follower will follow. No one is comfortable with making that speculation for a justice of the Supreme Court. And everyone senses a missed opportunity to increase the intellectual heft of decision making in the country's only forum for which there is no appeal.
And exactly where were you last November 2004? We had an election and Bush beat Kerry. Bush won. Bush has the consent of the people. That's how things work in America. It's called representative government. When you vote for someone and they win the election, you're giving them the power to govern over you.
Is that the long way of admitting you have a lack of real argument in favor of Miers. If so you have done well. Her judicial Philosophy is so overwhelming. Her gushing Christmas cards to the President are probably among her best writings on the subject.
As for you, In the famous words of that great political philosopher, Leghorn P. Leghorn, "go away kid, you bother me," and the rest of the grownups.
Very good. Pull the lever. Go back to the sheeple pen.
>>>> >>>>Had it not been for Iraq and SCOTUS, I might well have voted for Kerry.
>>>>Had I known The President would start not vigorously pursuing the War On Terror, make weak SCOTUS appointments, I could have voted for Kerry and hope, that keeping the goverment out of one party hands would negate some of the excesses we are seeing.
OMG. You've outted yourself as a closet liberal. LOL
NO, I said people who accuse others of being sanctimonious, are usually sanctimonious themselves.
You seem to be able to hang enough words together to form coherent sentences. Your ability for coherent thinking is somehow weak. You want to pull a lever and go back to sleep. That is not how my idea of a republic operates.
As for having the branches of goverment in separate party hands. The Republic has always, it seems, operated better under that scenario. I always like to think of all the bad legislation that does not get passed.
But then why explain this to a lightweight such as yourself. Your only argument tonight has been to call other people stupid.
Its late, I'm out of here for tonight. Please have your Mother hear your prayers, tuck you in, assure you evrything will be all right in the morning. Oh and remind her to leave your nightlight on.
goodnight Sonny7.
Huh? You telling me that once you vote, you don't concern yourself with what your elected officials do? You don't ever call them and tell them what you think regarding proposed legislation, or about proposed judges and justices or anything else? Seriously?
You know, there's a difference between a vote and a blank check. The President can't just do whatever the heck suits his fancy just because he won an election. He's constrained by the Constitution, the laws, and the people's consent. And consent doesn't occur *only* on election day; it occurs every time the House or Senate takes a vote. Really. If enough people object to Miers being confirmed, the Senate won't confirm her. *That's* representative government.
A word to the wise. Ad hominem attacks rarely work, if ever. Bad habit you have there.
I always hold my elected officials feet to the fire. Not saying it works, because most of the time it doesn't work. Obviously, PresBush hasn't listened to me. Bush has spent like a liberal, expanded the federal bureaucracy and ignored the issue of real immiragtion reform. Bottomline. Election day is when our political leaders get the consent of the goverened, to act in our best interests and govern as they see fit. That is representative government in our constitutional republic. Like it or not.
Sometimes it does work though. Remember Hillarycare, for example? When enough people raise a ruckus, we sometimes get our way, even between elections. Don't get me wrong. I do think Miers will be confirmed because I don't think the dissent will reach critical mass. I'm just saying that there's nothing wrong with people objecting to the nomination, whether they voted for the President or not. In fact I think it's totally normal and appropriate behavior in a supposedly free country for people to state their opinions and try to influence their Senators on such an important issue, even though it's way past election day. We're the bosses. *They* work for *us*, at least when we force them to.
monitor, supervise, ride herd onEternal Vigilance
Definition:
keep tabs on; keep an eye on; keep under surveillance
Ain't that nice, AKA, whatever.
Read your own post #153 you hypocrite.
I already debated the poster in question and he lost the debate. He lost the debate because he was given to unintelligent rhetoric marked by unreasoned thinking. That is the definition of stupid. If someone wants to agree with his consclusions, then they're no better then he is. Read back through the thread and if you're an honest person, you'll see what I'm talking about.
It doesn't matter whether you told the truth. You decried ad hominem attacks, which are attacks against the person regardless of truth or falsity, after you had engaged in such attacks on this thread.
Bush has shown his contempt for conservatives - at this point I almost wished he could be impeached - he has stabbed us in the back at every turn.
You've got to be joking. The truth always wins. Intelligent rhetoric based on reasoned thinking always wins out over unintelligent rhetoric marked by unreasoned thinking. Your outrage is unjustified. It is not an ad hominem attack if you first prove the fallacy of an opposition argument. I did that.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1498109/posts
href="http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1498109/posts ">Miers is dead in the water
Townhall
Laura Hollins
10/6/2005
Today's Chronicle of Higher Education has a story that describes Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers' involvement with a lecture series at her alma mater, SMU Law School. The inaugural lecturer? Gloria Steinem. I've played these games in law schools, and this story sends up red flags for me. Here's my take on it ...
It's just because it's their guy in the White House. I guess if you feel like the prez is the only politician in DC on your side, it'd be tempting to give him broad power. 400+ congressmen and 100 Senators, not to mention the press and the people, are a big hassle. As soon as a D is in the White House, obstructionism will once again be heralded, executive orders will be harshly criticized, and the Legislature will be celebrated. Hell, we might even filibuster.
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.