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that the White House is reaching out to GOP senators as to their recommendations for 'Plan B' in the event Miers is withdrawn.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.
No, but I don't need to be a plumber to figure out where the **** goes.
Well Tony did say that he verified it? Just curious whatever happened with this one...(especialy since I know Tony wasn't thrilled with the nomination).
Then apparently you have no right to criticize the court, is that it?
I guess that means Kelo was A-OK because 5 out of 9 supergeniouses said it was.
And Roe.
And Plessy.
Well, maybe Plessy then, but not later, when the case law made it OK. Or maybe not. Who can tell?
And which case law? There are hundreds of thousands of cases in the US. Do we take the good ones or the bad ones? Are 9th circuit cases OK, or do we throw them out in favor of the wisdom of Judge Greer?
Given the amount of shuffling the WH has done on this nomination, I don't trust their word. I think the short list was amenable to being whittled down to Miers as the "survivior," and that because Laura nd George wanted to reward a friend who possesed the general qualification for sitting on the SCOTUS.
Are you kidding? Did he really say that?
Uh, possibly not ;-)
some of you guys come up with STUCK on STUPID remarks
I'm stuck on the stupid remark that proportional representation is in the 14th Ammendment. I may never get over such stupidity.
You might find this thread interesting: Defending The Indefensible
In their unseemly eagerness to assure Miers's conservative detractors that she will reach the "right" results, her advocates betray complete incomprehension of this: Thoughtful conservatives' highest aim is not to achieve this or that particular outcome concerning this or that controversy. Rather, their aim for the Supreme Court is to replace semi-legislative reasoning with genuine constitutional reasoning about the Constitution's meaning as derived from close consideration of its text and structure. Such conservatives understand that how you get to a result is as important as the result. Indeed, in an important sense, the path that the Supreme Court takes to the result often is the result.
How else do you explain Miers, given Owen, Brown, and a handful of other female possibles? Somebody floated a rumor that out of a list of 5 candidates, 3 withdrew themselves and 1 was disqualified. Meaning, that the ONLY qualified female candidate was Miers.
That rumor was attributed to the WH, as a matter of justifying the Miers pick. All I'm saying is I don't believe the rumor; or if the rumor is true, that Owen and Brown were not on the original list of 5. If Owen and Brwon were not on the original list of 5, then the list may have been composed with an eye on Miers, a process with a predetermined outcome, all along.
I'd be the first to admit that this STUCK on STUPID speculation is idle - but think it's worthwhile to point out the fodder for the idle speculation.
You picked a good paragraph. It echos the principle of what makes a good justice.
Entwined with that is the notion of shifting the argument from issues advocay (what the DEMs have done with SCOTUS confirmation) and toward process advocacy. I think the GOP misses the process advocay angle every time. I feel like a solo singer here on FR. ;-)
By using "stealth," the GOP acquiesces to the premise that the appropriate field for debate is issues advocacy. Not only that, they are engaing in a process that is inherently dishonest.
No. Let's see some proof.
Trusting politicians is for the feeble-minded and Russians.
A libertarian would overturn Roe on jurisprudential grounds, regardless of their personal opinion of abortion. It is constitutionally unsound.
I await the hearings. If the evidence isn't there in the hearings that a) she's squeaky clean and b) that she is solidly to the right and will remain so, then I will withdraw my obviously critical support ;) We here on FR has so much power, you know.
The baby getting a screw driver shoved in his brain or having his arms and legs pulled off might disagree.
I hear 'ya dude.
A friend of mine who runs an ad agency in FL said “my politics were to the right of Attila the Hun”. I liked the quip so much... I put it in my FReeper Profile. My ex once said I was “cruel... but fair”(figure that one out).
I'm actually just a Reagan conservative... strong on defense, less bureaucracy and NO entitlements.
I don't believe Gonzales has demonstrated a willingness to be activist on the court. Indeed, he might function as a pro-life jurist while believing otherwise.
Exactly! And you're not alone, though it surely does seems so.....perhaps we're more like a cry in the wilderness...surely there are more who hear this cry and it won't always seem to be falling on deaf ears.
Or, similarly, Patsies.
That's my management style: Ruthless but fair. But ruthless.
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.