Posted on 10/22/2005 1:13:56 PM PDT by wagglebee
My best guess. Her nomination is a political disaster for Bush, it's time to cut the cord and name a real conservative like Janice Rogers Brown, Edith Clement, Edith Jones or Emilio Garza.
Well, I'm a conservative Republican that has backed the President in all ways...except this nomination. I believe this is a critical nomination that deserves more than a stealth candidate.
The you agree with Chuck Schumer that you are entitled to know the nominee's judicial philosophy before voting for her?
What happened that we now accept that the candidates judicial philosophy is germain? What happened to the practice when we affirmed Ruth Bader Ginsburg that unless there are legal or ethical reasons, the President deserves to have his choice consented to?
I'm saying we don't need or deserve another stealth nomination. Let Bush select a known conservative candidate.
I'm saying you don't get to judge the conservatism of the nominee. Nor does the Senate. Only whether there are legal or ethical reasons she should not serve.
Man, the Federalist Papers are a distant memory, I guess.
Those who have themselves reflected upon the subject, or who have attended to the observations made in other parts of these papers, in relation to the appointment of the President, will, I presume, agree to the position, that there would always be great probability of having the place supplied by a man of abilities, at least respectable. Premising this, I proceed to lay it down as a rule, that one man of discernment is better fitted to analyze and estimate the peculiar qualities adapted to particular offices, than a body of men of equal or perhaps even of superior discernment.
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.