The Constitution gives he President the right to nominate and the Senate the right to advise and consent. Giving Miers a Hearing seems Constitutional to me in spite of all the discussion she will not uphold "original intent."
Bet that she has a Hearing. Odds are better than even she will be confirmed.
When the president falsely stated she was the most qualified candidate he could find, he locked her into this nomination. Were she to withdraw, and the President nominated any one of the known candidates on his list, that candidate's better qualifications would highlight the fib he told.
The Democrats are not going to be too bothered by this nomination. If she has a hearing, she will be confirmed.
Please quote the statement I made (within the proper context please) where my comments were "wrong." I've stated that I don't object to hearings, but unlike you, I don't object to discussion prior to the hearings as you apparently do, and I pointed out why.
The Constitution gives the President the right to nominate and the Senate the right to advise and consent.
Yes, we know. You keep repeating it. They have not only the right, but the obligation. But the process doesn't end or necessarily begin there. This is what you are missing in your criticism of discussion.
The constitution certainly doesn't forbid us from discussing the nomination before the hearings take place, as your attitude almost seems to suggest.
Giving Miers a Hearing seems Constitutional to me in spite of all the discussion she will not uphold "original intent."
Discussing Miers before the Hearing is not unsconstituional. Nor is putting pressure on Bush to withdraw the nomination. If Bush decides to withdraw the nomination due to pressure from his constituents, that is not unconstitutional either. Or am I missing something? Your desire to end discussion and analysis on this basis is weak and disengenuous.
Bet that she has a Hearing. Odds are better than even she will be confirmed.
There it is. You've exposed your real purpose, and it is a petty one. To you, this is apparently about simply winning, consequences be damned.
You have no interest in the Supreme Court, the judicial philosophy of the justices or the impact that an appointment will have on you, or anybody, in the future.
It appears that you are only interested in the politics of it all - in "winning" for winning's sake. If Miers "wins," you "win." Is the political contest itself all that matters to you?
shrinkermd, once you lose site of the purpose of the game and the end result, and care only about the game itself, you have become no better than powerhungry Dems.
I've withheld commentary on Miers myself. I don't know enough to comment on her. However, unlike you, I don't bristle when people question the nomination or when they refuse to provide blind support to any and everything the President proposes.