Posted on 10/22/2005 4:11:56 AM PDT by governsleastgovernsbest
Though not giving it much more than 'rumor' treatment, on Fox & Friends Weekend it was just reported that the White House is reaching out to GOP senators as to their recommendations for 'Plan B' in the event Miers is withdrawn.
One of the F&F hosts clarifed that according to the information Fox has received, it is not WH aides who are doing the outreach directly, but conservative surrogates.
Hmm, who was it who wrote a book about men and women in black robes who are out of step of the real world because they mostly had careers in legal academia.
Oh that's right it was Mark Levin.
Sounds as if the person you are describing is an autistic idiot-savant. If Miers has such hidden genius, she has been entirely successful in keeping it hidden. Do you have any evidence of it?
When you began your defense of Miers, did you ever think you'd eventually find yourself on the opposite side from Bork, Rush [who never graduated from college] et. al, and on the same side as those favoring hard race-based quotas
No, no, no - that wasn't my point: IMHO, the Senate's lack of discernable spine apparently made the WH decide it had no option but to choose a 'confirmable' nominee in Miers. If she is ultimately dumped. it will be because the Conservative wing demanded a mulligan on this nomination. That's the point of #34.
So for you, the "real" world of BEST choices for a Supreme Court of the United States Justice does NOT include men or judges. Those who claim otherwise are "elistists." Interesting "reality" you have.
Who's dictating? We're expressing our opinions and seeking redress of grievances. Of course we recognize that only the President has the constitutional authority to nominate, while the Senate has the right and duty to advise and consent.
Unfortunately, since he's not up for reelection, and he only has his "legacy" to consider, any cowboying will most likely be done roping the ultra-right bucking broncos in his own party.
She has never stated govt. mandated quotas and it seems you are against a supporter of the 2nd amendment(which Bork called an anachorism) and is pro-life.
Laura is thrilled? Big freakin' deal. Nobody voted for her.
I like her, haven't been all that impressed listening to her speak, but whether she's 'thrilled' or not should have no bearing on this pick. Bush blew it with this non-starter with a bench full of all-stars to choose from. It's by far the biggest blunder of his Presidency, thus far.
I don't understand what people see in Miers that convince them she's a strict constructionist. The "proportional representation required by the Equal Protection clause" should've sealed the deal on this sinking ship. If not that, then her support for affirmative action.
I'm not talking 'credentials' in the sense of a fancy diploma on the wall. I'm talking ability. If Miers had never spent a day in college, but had on her own become a student of the constitution and developed a strong, originalist viewpoint, I'd support her whole-heartedly.
Wasn't that who a lot of yall thought he wanted, to begin with?
MIERS MAY STOP MEETING WITH SENATORS!: According to NR's Byron York, things are going so badly for Harriet Miers in her Senate meetings, that her team might put an end to the practice altogether! The conference calls that were designed to bolster her support and organize the pro-Miers strategy are now few and far between. Everyone seems depressed about this. But Bush continues to dig in deeper.
So you're not disturbed that Miers supports hard affirmative action quotas, be they government-enforced or private sector?
And with all due respect, it is unfair to try to pin on me this or that cherry picked position by one of Miers' opponents. Taken as a whole, her opponents represent the best of conservative mainstream thinking.
Ask Bush. He knows her.
The WH is denying that, for whatever its worth. I believe the story was probably true, but when it got out, the WH realized it was such a sign of weakness that they were forced to schedule more meetings.
* "[Harriet Miers] greatly exceeds all the standards that have been set for meeting what is needed to serve on our nation's Court. She is exceptionally well-qualified," claimed Scott McClellan.
THE TRUTH:
Interesting. All we've been hearing about is that she's a "pioneer woman" who worked with Meals On Wheels. Stunning! There are a lot of great lawyers in the world; that doesn't necessarily make them good candidates for the Supreme Court.
Why? You cherry picked affirmative action without 1 iota that she supports govt. mandated affirmative action.
I think it probably is true, myself. It's a shame that one needs to spin/manufacture support for such an "extremely well qualified" person.
IMO, if she were the best, it would be plainly obvious and without question and would obviously not necessitate working so hard to make it appear so.
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.