Posted on 10/17/2005 10:51:26 AM PDT by Ol' Sparky
Put this into the "We are still opposed, and every day that we are opposed add more days to the already mounting number of days that we have been opposed. Soon there will so many days that we have been opposed that the shear weight of all those days of opposition will topple the nomination."
"And think of how bad it will be if we actually get a new piece of evidence that proves our charges against her!!!"
LOL. Frum needs to shut up. He isn't helping matters. Meanwhile, I am still looking for fact regarding the nominee, so I can form an opinion. Absent the ability to form an opinion, I just can't support the nomination.
Seems like Frum has lost his argument.
"Absent that, this poll is being selectively used by Frum for his daily blast at Miers."
Frum has staked his future on this issue....he is a cornered animal and will fight like one to death. It will be interesting to see Frum's reaction when Miers is confirmed. I would hate to be within spittin distance of him at that time....
It's a contentious issue. "Trust" "Don't trust" is tantamount to a religious war - because "trust" is an object that is not amenable to doubt invoked by debate.
The only pundits who have been taken to task are those who have been doing some smearing of their own.
Most of us who are asking for hearings have not made a decision about Miers (I haven't.). We just resent this arrogance on the part of a few that insists that Miers step down so that their choice can be put up for consideration.
If Miers bombs, she'll be voted down. If not, she'll be voted in.
That's the way the process works, which includes Bush getting to make his own selection to the SC.
"And John Fund's rather shocking story in today's Wall Street Journal"
Has this been posted?
Oh, don't forget the "shocking story" that evangelicals who joined the party mostly to overturn Roe had a meeting where they speculated about whether the nominee would overturn Roe.
Certainly this must be the first time there has ever been such a meeting? No, it's more likely this is just the first time that anybody attending the meeting was actually an enemy out to sink the nomination.
Oh, and after a week of running his famed "Petition" to request Miers withdraw, with several days of hawking the petition on Laura Ingraham's show, on her web site, on National Review, and I assume a lot of other places, he is pleased to report that out of the 280 million people in the country, he has a phenomenal 3842 signatures.
Wonder how many of them are from DU.
I am certainly thinking that those 3842 people are much more qualified to pick our nominee than the President. We should amend the constitution to write this petition stuff into the advise-and-consent clause (or better still to the nominations clause). Or maybe we should just fight nominees that could be constructionists in the hope we get some more Souters and Ginsburgs and they can just adopt this new constitutional opportunity.
"This is a deeply troubled nomination and will only get worse. For his own sake, for the sake of the party, President Bush should withdraw it now. If you agree, I hope you will consider clicking on that tally button above and adding your name."
I agree - WITHDRAWL HER!
Enough is KNOWN about her to indicate she is NO conservative.
Too bad the leadership doesn't get this excited over immigration, the energy bill, the education bill, fiscal spending, environmental reform, property rights, qualified conservative judicial candidates, etc, etc, etc.
David Frum can spout all the anti Miers rhetoric he can muster. In the end he'll be on the losing side. Miers will win confirmation and she'll be more of a conservative then SD O'Conner was. Objective accomplished.
I also think that Ann Coulter was outrageous on Miers last week on Hannity radio. I lost a lot of respect for her. Since I'm a woman, I can view Ann objectivity, without allowing testosterone to blind me.
My exact thought, though better phrased.
Dan
Hewitt, Miers, Levin, and the authorship of the Pastoral Epistles
Of course, the dark side has suggested they will go after any senator that votes for her.
If this could be made into an absolute pledge by both sides, it could be an interesting referendum on which group the senators fear more.
My views have started to sway against the President because, with a little help from my friends on FR, I have come to recognize some of the "elitism" coming from the Administration. The charge of "sexism" was and is revealing, ridiculous and a waaaaaayyyyy off base projection by the Whitehouse, who, I feel are the real sexists in this skunk spraying contest. It's not Miers fault that she was born a woman but it's also not any kind of a qualification. It's only an irrelevant matter of fact. I'm very troubled by what I have seen from Miers' history and writing. I really want to read and see more of her, watch her hearings, and base my opinion and action on that.
About these points:
(1) I think a nominees' personal views on religion and abortion are utterly PROPER for Supreme Court selection criteria. We take it for granted that no nominee is in favor of slavery but if one were found to be pro-slavery, she would certainly be disqualified regardless of her alleged judicial philosophy. I think it's an outrageous fiction to expect that any human being could be aloof from the war against religion and life within our civilization. If religion is off limits for a lifetime Supreme, then we have already lost that war.
(2) congressional-executive relations have been damaged even further Conservatives should not care about this because it is manifestly obvious that Congress are an abdicating pantheon of double talking, hog-farming cads whose every word, thought and action drip with duplicity and guile. Those guys think the SCOTUS is just a Super Senate anyway. I'd love to see our "compassionate" President Ado Annie find her veto pen. I'd be happy to see EVERY "legislative agenda" die and rot for the next three years.
(3) The assurances offered to the Arlington Group were almost certainly empty. I'm a very religious conservative. The Arlington Group does not speak for me.
Opps!
WITHFRAWL=WITHDRAWL
I have great reservations about Meirs. But I am sick of David Frum. He has the elitest opinion that even if she votes the way we want, she's not good enough.
Well Mr. Frum, look at what you wrote in July, before she was nominated. Why no objection then?
"....in the Supreme Court sweepstakes: Keep an eye on Harriet Miers, White House counsel. Miers was the first woman president of the Texas Bar Association, a co-managing partner of a 400-lawyer firm in Texas, a one-time Dallas city councilor, and by the by, the personal lawyer to one George W. Bush. She joined his staff as governor, served as staff secretary (Richard Darman’s old job) in the first administration, and now oversees the White House’s legal work. She is quiet, discreet, intensely loyal to Bush personally, and – though not ideologically conservative – nonetheless firmly pro-life. Plus she’s a woman. Double plus – she’d be a huge surprise, and the president loves springing surprises on Washington and those pundits who think they know it all." [emphasis added"
http://www.americanthinker.com/comments.php?comments_id=3396
I am uncomfortable approving politcal outcomes as the rational basis of governance.
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.