"We're doomed!"
Doomed??? Someone should tell Bush.
Get ready for Alberto Gonzales.
look, bottom line is, she may well be a fine lady. She probably has many of the same values as me and other conservatives. But she has not shown that she has a strong enough intellect to withstand the suasions and appeals to emotion that will be used by her liberal comrades on the bench. There is great temptation for justices to become heady and more liberal once they hold the reins of power (Souter, anyone?). She's too much of a risk.
I don't know who this Tabin fellow is, but I think he is correct.
Ms. Miers is a weak nominee.
Moving on.
Democrats might have concluded that it would be better to back Miers than risk facing a stronger conservative.
----
Of course. That is why they were "happy" with Meirs. They see her as a soft spot. An easy touch. Bush really let us down with her selection, in lieu of a STRONG, ESTABLISHED, WELL-KNOWN stand-up CONSERVATIVE.
Without wishing to offend my fellow FReepers who support Miers, those who agree that the nomination is going down are invited to participate in my pool to guess the date and time of the nomination's withdrawal.
Grand Prize: a Wal-Mart jumbo-sized eraser.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1506652/posts
I'm losing track of who I have to lose respect for (for daring to speak their opinion), be cheesed off at (for daring to speak their opinion), call names like "traitor, lemming, evil, sexist", etc. (for daring to speak their opinion). Can someone please post an exhaustive list of who the "good Republican" pundits are, and who the "principled conservative" pundits are? Thanks so much!
Note to the sarcasm impaired: Yes, the above was indeed sarcasm.
The back and forth and back and forth and back and forth is obsession IMO. The lady will speak but until then obsessives will obsess I suppose. There are other things going on in the world to pay attention to until the hearings. Iraq is huge.
(And she will be confirmed IMO.)
Was there this level of protests when Clinton was nominating SCOTUS positions?
I was not on FR during the Clinton years.
Ouch. That hurts coming from Sessions, whom could rightly be nominated for the Court himself. IF Sesssions jumps ship, this is over. He's a legit conservative, should have been on the Court if not for being rejected by Democrats which is why he ran for office, and a loyal Bush Rupublican. I'm following him far more closely than I am Brownback.
That stated the President is stubborn and Senate Republicans can be rolled easily except when it comes to Liberal issues where they capitulate. This is why I have never said she won't be confirmed.
My main issue is that I resent strongly being told I'm an elitist and a sexist because I do not support this nomination from the administration. My issue is that I saw red when Lindsey told me to "Shut Up". My issue is that I will not be bullied into submission by some people on this board to be silent so they can claim this nomination has the support of all but a few narrowminded malcontents that hate this President. The more they push these actions upon me, the more I dig in to continue vocalizing my discontent.
I do not hate this President. I'm previous been a very strong supporter of him for five years. I am not a malcontent, Traitor or Evil as I've been defamed by some. I reject this nomination because it deserves rejection on merit. That some on the board to the administration itself cannot accept principled disagreement and valid points against is their issue, not mine, but these tactics have not worked to persuade people to their side. Quite opposite, it's widened a rift.
She does not have a documented Judicial philosophy. Her understanding of the Constitution she would be charged to guard is suspect. She is not among the most qualified pool of excellence that should be mined when choosing a nominee. To suggest this is not elitist, but what conservatives have always advocated. Excellence is deserving of promotion. Diversity is nothing but a colorful element to celebrate if excellence is met.
Reportedly one Senator has already approached the W.H. about withdrawing the nomination. No word on the name. My opinion is that the W.H. is unlikely to withdraw even if 55 Republicans came to him. He'll demand the hearing. The question is whether the Senate will bend to confirmation with possible promises made in back room deals, or if they will take their unhappiness with this selection public and reject.
My assumption is that the W.H. has calculated the Senators will fold rather than face the ire of a retalitory W.H. in the aftermath and is why they will not withdraw. That's actually my assessment of the Senate as well, but the irony is that if the calculation is correct they could have pushed a far better nominee and she/he would have been confirmed. I'll be pleasantly surprised if conservative Republican Senators have the courage to take a stand on the merits and reject the nomination.
Now is the chance for Bush to nominate a true conservative who believes in Constitutional rule of law and has shown a solid career of fighting socialism.
Let the nominee be: pro life; against affirmative action; in favor of revising immigration laws designed to limit and keep out foreigners; pro business; against Bush's New World Order; for school vouchers; of strong religious faith; an advocate of traditional American values; opposed to the welfare state; states rights; dedicated to overturn Roe; minimum taxes; and of original intent; and be in favor of means-testing all proposed legislation against the Constitution.
And then let the Dems bring it on.
Now is the chance for Bush to nominate a true conservative who believes in Constitutional rule of law and has shown a solid career of fighting socialism.
Let the nominee be: pro life; against affirmative action; in favor of revising immigration laws designed to limit and keep out foreigners; pro business; against Bush's New World Order; for school vouchers; of strong religious faith; an advocate of traditional American values; opposed to the welfare state; states rights; dedicated to overturn Roe; minimum taxes; and of original intent; and be in favor of means-testing all proposed legislation against the Constitution.
And then let the Dems bring it on.
Now is the chance for Bush to nominate a true conservative who believes in Constitutional rule of law and has shown a solid career of fighting socialism.
Let the nominee be: pro life; against affirmative action; in favor of revising immigration laws designed to limit and keep out foreigners; pro business; against Bush's New World Order; for school vouchers; of strong religious faith; an advocate of traditional American values; opposed to the welfare state; states rights; dedicated to overturn Roe; minimum taxes; and of original intent; and be in favor of means-testing all proposed legislation against the Constitution.
And then let the Dems bring it on.
Now is the chance for Bush to nominate a true conservative who believes in Constitutional rule of law and has shown a solid career of fighting socialism.
Let the nominee be: pro life; against affirmative action; in favor of revising immigration laws designed to limit and keep out foreigners; pro business; against Bush's New World Order; for school vouchers; of strong religious faith; an advocate of traditional American values; opposed to the welfare state; states rights; dedicated to overturn Roe; minimum taxes; and of original intent; and be in favor of means-testing all proposed legislation against the Constitution.
And then let the Dems bring it on.
Assuming the Miers nomination fails, I wonder if Bush could focus on pi$$ing of the liberals this time?
If she really cares about the President, she should withdraw. I suppose she advised Bush to appoint a special prosecutor re. the Valerie Plame case. This special prosecutor was to appease the media, little did they think it would ensnare some of their own.