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that the White House is reaching out to GOP senators as to their recommendations for 'Plan B' in the event Miers is withdrawn.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.
The "elitists" don't decide who is best qualified, the President does. If he decides he wants an 18 year high school co-ed because she understands how young people feel, unless the Senate shoots him down, he can do that.
The fact that he picked a Christian woman with a law degree and experience clerking at the Federal court level should be comforting under that prism. I just think she should be given her chance instead of shot down as a "cleaning lady."
The Senate does. That's the "advise & consent" part that appears between "nominate" and "appoint."
Who said the President isn't "entitled" to pick whomever he wants? I don't agree with his choice, or his statements, that's she's the BEST qualified to put forth conservative constitutional values nor a conservative constitutional social agenda for the country. She lacks experience and knowledge of the constitution and with what IS known about her background, her conservativism is questionable.
This is the absolute BEST post I have seen. Great job!
I disagree 100 percent, it is the LEFT that tries to remove religion from the public square. It is Bush who again gave voice to faith-based organizations working with government and religion freely expressed. The President is perfectly within his right making a religious background a qualification for his nominee.
You know the Founders were religious men, and the Constitution DOES recognize that our rights come from God. What's wrong with a nominee that recognizes those facets of public life, and will support them?
What's wrong with picking a person whose strong moral code might be as much of a benefit to the Court as another persons 25 years in Constitutional Law?
I never said REMOVING from the public square.
I said promoting someone's Christian beliefs has never heretofore been used as a QUALIFICATION to sit on the bench.
Qualification to sit on the bench previously was their knowledge/understanding/interpretation/alliance with the constitution/states rights positions/affirmative action stance, etc.
In Miers, she is "best" not because of those real qualifications, but because......she's a woman, she's a Christian, she supports affirmative action.....just to name a few.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1507223/posts
For those who were wondering about her positions on quotas etc..
Nominees have been withdrawn before. Remember Douglas "Captain Toke" Ginsberg, who was Reagan's first nominee chosen after Bork's defeat? He had to withdraw after it was revealed he was a marijuana smoker while he was a law school professor.
Since when did Meals on Wheels qualify someone for a seat on the Supreme Court?!?
Here is Fund in his own words. He says the bribe story is bogus, and you accuse him of perpetrating a smear.
Your personal credibility just took a hit, ekwd.
October 17, 2005John Fund [JF]: I think there are going to be some very interesting items about the fact that almost no one can be found, anywhere in the country, other than the president of the United States and a few people inside the White House fence, who have ever had a political or philosophical conversation with her. This is a mystery woman. This is a woman who holds her cards so close to her chest, that they could be plastered on it. She apparently has never discussed her judicial philosophy, Constitutional law, or even politics in any substantive way with anyone who'll acknowledge it. I mean, it's trying to have us buy a blank slate that's completely surrounded by wrapping paper.
Jeb Babbin filling in for Hugh Hewett [JB]: Well, all right. But we've got other things that are hanging out there. I mean, apparently, there was some messy personnel matter, somebody got fired...
JF: Oh, the Texas Lotter Commission is coming, of course. The Texas Lottery Commission is going to be very important, because it involves a Democratic lobbyist, Ben Barnes. It involves an executive director of the Texas Lottery Commission who was fired by Harriet Miers, who sued over his firing, got a $300,000 settlement, files were sealed. This fellow lives in New York right now. His name is (Lawrence) Litwin, he's a former control data executive, and he says the following: I can't talk about this, because of the confidentiality agreement. But if the Senate subpoenas me, I want to come, and I want to testify. And that opens a whole can of worms about President Bush, and scandals in Texas.
JB: President Bush tied personally to this scandal?
JF: His aides tied personally to this scandal, regarding the Texas Lottery Commission. And, out of concern that certain things regarding Mr. Bush's service in the Air National Guard. Remember that story?
JB: Oh, good grief. Is that again?
JF: Look, again, I don't think there's much there. But the point is the Harriet Miers nomination give the Democrats and the media another bite at the apple, because they weren't finished with the 60 Minutes fake memos. They want another bite at the apple.
In Miers, she is "best" not because of those real qualifications, but because......she's a woman, she's a Christian, she supports affirmative action.....just to name a few.
The Constitution is mute on what qualifications the President must use to pick his nominee. Can't you see that it is YOUR OWN bias that only you know the "real qualifications?"
You sound like the Dems wailing for "REAL campaign finance reform," like they were the arbiters of what is REAL.
The President decided he wanted a Christian woman who he knew well on the Court. IMHO, the atheist right and the atheist left are the factions that form a coalition against this pick.
Since when didn't it?
I'm glad you brought that up- I was thinking about that last night- we've been through bad picks before without the sun then rising in the west..
The changes are self-evident- cable tv, internet etc. It used to be less "public" before the onslaught of the information age- for good and ill.
The article states: "Although Miers was not the author of either policy, board members who served with her said she fully supported both efforts."
The "efforts" in question were: "a goal of hiring one qualified minority lawyer for every 10 new associates and setting aside a specific number of seats on the bar's board of directors for women and minorities."
No, I don't see evidence of support for government-supported mandates, but do you think a true conservative would support the kind of "efforts" she did?
Did you trust Reagan on Kennedy, GHWB on Souter? Of course W doesn't want a Souterite to be his legacy. But I think he might have made just such a mistake here.
There's no doubt.
And Aunt Bee is running for sheriff..
against Ernest T.. and Barney is The D.A.
Would be quite funny, if it was..
But CONSERVATIVES aren't! They want someone who is a CONSERVATIVE. Who is like SCALIA OR THOMAS. Miers ISN'T.
Conservatives are saying: Meals on Wheels service doesn't make her qualified to sit on SCOTUS. Christianity doesn't make her qualified to sit on SCOTUS. Sex doesn't make her qualified. Blindly "trusting" the President doesn't make her qualified. Her pro-affirmative action stance makes her questionable. Her lack of knowledge in the constitution makes her questionable. Her past party affiliation and donations to the Democrats/party makes her questionable.
I sound NOTHING like a Rat.
It's interesting that you blame the Federalist Society for being so nasty to Miers when Leonard Leo, Executive VP of the Federalist Society is on leave to help Miers through the nomination process.
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.