This calls for another round of the kool.
Posted on 10/23/2005 9:15:28 PM PDT by gpapa
Monday, October 24, 2005 12:01 a.m. EDT
President Bush has returned from a weekend in Camp David, where much of the discussion centered on the beleaguered nomination of Harriet Miers. While the president is determined to press forward, the prognosis he received was grim. Her visits with senators have gone poorly. Her written answers to questions from the Senate were sent back as if they were incomplete homework. The nominee herself has stumbled frequently in the tutorials in which government lawyers are grilling her in preparation for her Nov. 7 hearings.
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...
Kennedy was a third-stringer, who supposedly assured Senator Helms that he was anti-Roe.
Miers is a disaster in the making.
The only way that a possible replacement could be worse is if it was Alberto Gonzales.
Since yours is the first response to this thread, you must live for them?
I hope that Frist and other Senate Republican presidential hopefuls realize that supporting Meirs or another stealth candidate after her will likely doom them in the primaries.
"Conservatives still recall that in the White House of the first President Bush, Mr. Card was deputy chief of staff to Mr. Sununu, the prime backer of Judge Souter. Mr. Card told me on Friday that "it would be a complete exaggeration to say I played a role in the Souter selection. I merely supported his nomination as I did all presidential appointments."
Ed Rollins, the GOP consultant who at the time headed the House Republican Campaign Committee and who was Mr. Card's boss in the Reagan White House, remembers it differently. "Of course Andy played a role," he told me. "He was Sununu's top aide." Two other aides who served with Mr. Card in the White House told me he was an enthusiastic backer of the Souter selection. "Now that he's brought us Miers we worry that 15 years later Andy is playing the role of a Serial Souterizer," one said. "
===
Getting another "Souter in a skirt" as some put it, is exactly what concerns a lot of us, especially since Miers support for affirmative action came to light.
"Conservatives still recall that in the White House of the first President Bush, Mr. Card was deputy chief of staff to Mr. Sununu, the prime backer of Judge Souter. Mr. Card told me on Friday that "it would be a complete exaggeration to say I played a role in the Souter selection. I merely supported his nomination as I did all presidential appointments."
Ed Rollins, the GOP consultant who at the time headed the House Republican Campaign Committee and who was Mr. Card's boss in the Reagan White House, remembers it differently. "Of course Andy played a role," he told me. "He was Sununu's top aide." Two other aides who served with Mr. Card in the White House told me he was an enthusiastic backer of the Souter selection. "Now that he's brought us Miers we worry that 15 years later Andy is playing the role of a Serial Souterizer," one said. "
===
Getting another "Souter in a skirt" as some put it, is exactly what concerns a lot of us, especially since Miers support for affirmative action came to light.
Right now, Fred Thompson has a better shot at snagging the nomination.
Unfortunately, he's not running.
:(
Cram session isn't going well.
Ed Rollins, the GOP consultant who at the time headed the House Republican Campaign Committee and who was Mr. Card's boss in the Reagan White House, remembers it differently. "Of course Andy played a role," he told me. "He was Sununu's top aide." Two other aides who served with Mr. Card in the White House told me he was an enthusiastic backer of the Souter selection. "Now that he's brought us Miers we worry that 15 years later Andy is playing the role of a Serial Souterizer," one said.
You are not obligated to read or respond to them.
I realize you are seeking attention, but since you have nothing to contribute in relation to the topic, then leave. And, I'd advise if that is beyond your ability, that you be ignored from this point.
I don't understand why one or two people keep pushing Williams. I don't have anything against her or know all there is to know, of course, but at first glance I don't see anything particularly exciting there either.
What a brilliant way to spend political capital - use is AGAINST members of your own party.
This calls for another round of the kool.
LOL
Where are the true conservative defenders of Saint Harriet and King George, namely MNJohnnie, Sinkspur, Af_vet_needs_to_be_committed, et al?
I didn't realize that Card played such a big role in the Souter debacle. Just one more reason to be against this nomination....*shudder*
This is, I believe, the most disturbing report I've seen yet. Ms. Miers seems not to have a guiding philosophy but, instead, "wings it" with each decision.
Sounds like the next Sandra Day O'Connor...
I agree!
"By far the strongest, however, is Brown's - the court's main opinion, in which she was joined by three other justices. She gave Proposition 209 a broad and forceful reading, interpreting it to outlaw not just explicit quotas but also race and gender "goals," because "a participation goal differs from a quota or a set-aside only in degree.
Brown set the measure in historical context, hailing it as a statement of the venerable rule that no one should be treated better or worse than another on account of race. She quoted the late Yale Law School Professor Alexander Bickel: "[D]iscrimination on the basis of race is illegal, immoral, unconstitutional, inherently wrong, and destructive of democratic society." The U.S. Supreme Court had veered from this principle, Brown noted; Proposition 209 represents a decision by the California electorate to return to it, reasserting a goal of "equal opportunity for all individuals" rather than "entitlement based on group representation."
Justice Brown is committed to racial equality because she is committed to individual rights, and to protecting individuals, of all colors, against government abuse, even when the abuse is based in a popular consensus. Just as the small hotel owners of San Francisco should be free unjustified government coercion, and no contractor should be denied business because of race, so Mr. McKay should be free from arbitrary exercises of state power. Since many small entrepreneurs are members of racial minorities, protecting business against intrusive government meddling is more relevant to their welfare than most of the incendiary causes in Jesse Jackson's bag of tricks.
Brown is also a strong believer in individual property rights:
""Private property, already an endangered species in California, is now entirely extinct in San Francisco," she observed. The City had become a "neo-feudal regime." She reprimanded fellow jurists who automatically give a pass to confiscatory land-use restrictions. "Once again a majority of this court has proved that 'if enough people get together and act in concert, they can take something and not pay for it.' But theft is theft. Theft is theft even when the government approves of the thievery."
Read the article from 2003 about her:
Judging Janice Rogers Brown
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=10636
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.