Posted on 10/24/2005 9:28:23 AM PDT by Crackingham
Because we are at a critical time in our history, with Hillary! seeking to discredit Republicans ala Nixon just before she runs, I have decided to take it on faith.
In addition, there's some oceanfront property on the Vermont coast that I really think you'd like. You can't actually visit it before you buy, but trust me, you're really gonna enjoy that sea breeze!
Ah, the "Hillary made me do it" defense, trotted out as an excuse for voting for liberals, giving up freedoms, and accepting unqualified Supreme Court nominees.
In the future, I will ignore your unserious, more childish comments and focus on actual arguments.
I don't need a defense, I'm taking George Bush and Harriet Miers at their word.
It means whatever each Senator thinks it means. "Advise & consent" is a term of art, much like "High crimes and misdemeanors" is. In the end, it is somewhat a political question, because the Senator will have to answer for his vote, to his constituency.
PS Thanks for the new tagline.
I wish we had 50 Senators who would reject any nominee that doesn't respect the Constitution and would go to ANY lengths, including the "nucular" option, to confirm those that openly do.
problem is, she does have a 'record' that is coming out against her, and "trust me" isn't much of a defense against it.
Baa Baa Lead on LAT and WAPO.
Opponents are borking her so bad the Desm don't have to. I have seen half of the arguments against her blown away and I don't believe the rest.
Look, she's not my pick but she's Bush's and the Constitution says that's good enough as long as the Senate consents.
I don't believe any Senator has expressed a conclusion, but various rationales that feed into the "why/why not" analysis have been expressed by Senators.
Although Schumer added he would give Miers the benefit of the doubt on her knowledge of constitutional issues, he seemed surprised she was not yet prepared to talk about some cornerstone privacy cases from 1921 and 1964."She is not a constitutional lawyer, she never purported to be a constitutional lawyer, but she clearly needs some time to learn about these cases," he said.
He was also dubious of the possibility of confirmation hearings by Nov. 7.
"Given my first little discussion with Harriet Miers, I don't think we can do this on Nov. 7, just because there's so little there, there was so little actual information exchanged."
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/wn_report/v-pfriendly/story/356640p-303997c.html
Earlier this week, President Bush asserted -- as his father did after naming Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas -- that Miss Miers is the most qualified nominee in the country.Sen. Trent Lott, Mississippi Republican and Bush supporter, took issue with that answer.
"Is she the most qualified person?" he asked aloud on MSNBC this week. "Clearly, the answer to that is 'No.' There are a lot more people, men, women and minorities that are more qualified in my opinion by their experience than she is."
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20051007-111713-8663r.htm
"The record we have so far is simply insufficient to assess the qualifications of this nominee," Kennedy said. "While her resume lists impressive qualifications as a practicing attorney, it simply does not give the Senate -- or the public -- sufficient information to determine her qualifications to be a Supreme Court Justice and her commitment to core constitutional values."Liberals Express Concern; 'Miers Must Answer Questions' -- 10/03/2005
The latest doubts voiced by a prominent conservative came from Sen. Rick Santorum (Pa.), chairman of the Senate Republican Conference and the chamber's third-ranking GOP leader. Santorum, who trails a Democratic challenger in polls heading into next year's election, said in response to a question during a stop in Pennsylvania on Thursday that he had not made up his mind how he would vote on Miers and took a jab at Bush for choosing her."I don't know yet," Santorum said, according to an account yesterday in the Public Opinion newspaper of Chambersburg, Pa. "But I am concerned President Bush nominated someone who is a blank slate. I'm disappointed he wanted to nominate someone like that instead of someone with a record."
Posted on October 24th, 2005 at 12:06 pm.
About 'Careful What You Wish For'.
Hinderaker must have written this piece a week ago when the calculus on the nomination was very different. That, or his political instincts are busted.
That was embarrassing to read. I am officially dumber for having done so.
http://www.confirmthem.com/?p=1693
Yep.
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.