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.
Have you been reading any of these threads at all? Plenty of reasons have been given. If you're truly interested in wanting to understand why, you can start by looking here and here.
Tell you what - get back to me when you've learned how to read.
I really hate to quote a liberal, but, Dorothy Parker said it all, "There is no there, there."
There was an interesting blurb today on this new blog I came across, Dallasblog.com, basically saying Miers has all the hallmarks of a Rove pick. They gave an interesting explanation for why they feel that way.
Your silly comments on "supervision" of the POTUS preclude any other meaningful response.
Look bucko, if you had a brain in your head you'd understand that the word "supervise" indicates a direct and daily management of a lower level employee. If you want to debate issues, using the proper words in context would help you. Holding an elected officials feet to the fire is a term I've come to use over the years. Nobody supervises a POTUS. Nobody!
is there a cut off date to be able to do that? Three years ok, two years, just not *A* year huh?
Oh yeah, this is a sarcastic response!
Meier's going for the SCOTUS is like an NBA halftime where they pull some schmoo out of the stands to take one shot at the basket from Halfcourt, to win "whatever." Their chance of making the shot is barely possible. But! What if they do. We still don't sign them to an NBA contract.
And as the object of the hearings for the nominee, is to reveal as little as possible in order to be confirmed, something at which Miers is particularly adept, we will learn precious little more about her.
In short, we will gain little from the hearings, except a further strengthening of the nomination, afterwhich it will be too late to do anything about. Absolutley, I would like to see Miers withdraw before the hearings as did Douglas Ginsberg, after the nomination of Judge Bork failed.
The time to dissent is now.
The cutoff is 2 years exactly.
Oh yeah, this is a sarcastic response!
Agreed.
Okay, tell your "servant" to get you a cup of coffee. I'll wait.
Miers is a qualified legal professional. She has over 30 years of experience as a law partner, head of a state bar association and legal council to the most powerful man in the world. She has never been a judge. CJ Rehnquist wasn't a judge either when Nixon nominated him to the SCOTUS.
Your being called whiners because you're making shameless fools of yourselves. Unless you are a senator you don't have a vote on the issue. Nothing you can say will change that.
GWB has said he will not withdraw her name. Do you really believe you can intimidate him into changing his mind? I'll LMAO if you answer that any way but no. So, ,her fortunes will rise or fall based on her Senate hearings as they should. I suspect she'll do well.
Then you and your fellow ankle biters will have egg all over your faces much as Little Annie Know-It-All Coulter did after the Roberts' hearings.
Sure we can. We just like to make fun of it.
This is nothing less than the final break with true Conservatives and the GWB Neoconsrvative administration. Its been coming but in retrospect all the signs of Neoconservatism
which is not American Conservatism- there:http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/001679.html
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.