Posted on 10/24/2005 6:03:59 PM PDT by Cautor
The campaign to urge the withdrawal of Harriet Miers has moved to the next level. Two new groups have stepped forward: WithdrawMiers.org (http://www.withdrawmiers.org/) is a consortium of social conservative groups that will encourage members to write directly to their representatives in Congress.
Some friends of mine and I meanwhile have organized Americans for Better Justice (http://www.betterjustice.com/default.php?page_id=1) which has raised money for a national television and radio advertising campaign to urge the withdrawal of the nomination of Harriet Miers. You will be able to see our spots very shortly on the site. They will be airing this week on "Special Report with Brit Hume," "Fox and Friends," the Rush Limbaugh program, the Laura Ingraham program, among other places.
[snip]
There is a very great deal at stake. The seat to which the president has nominated Harriet Miers has been the court's swing seat on a range of issues from same-sex marriage to racial gerrymandering, from religious liberty to federalism. It is too important to be shrugged off - and it is reckless to suggest (as some of my email correspondents are suggesting) that this is a job that can be done by pretty much anybody with a tablespoon of common sense. On the contrary, reversing 4 decades of bad jurisprudence will take very uncommon levels of courage, ability, integrity, and independence. Conservatives have worked too hard for too long to settle for anything less than our very best on the Supreme Court. Please join me and BetterJustice.com in pressing the president to reconsider and do better.
"But working to effect her withdrawal without a hearing is wrong."
You may not like it but it's Constitutional. I don't consider I owe Bush anything on Miers.
You are correct, I have the wrong word. What is the word for the tactic where the debator tries to claim that because Bush used "advisors" to assist him with the pick, that he did not actually make the choice?
"The sheer incompetence of openning that can of worms, of making the faith of a nomineee fair game, makes me think twice about the competence of this entire selection process."
I think it's clear the vetting was not up to what I would have expected from Bush. I am sorely disappointed.
The real question is why would Frum write speeches for Bush. Frum is a little disingenuous for having worked for a man he neither respects or believes in. It does reflect on his integrity and his honor, which are suspect for working for someone, not because they supported the agenda of the President and his Presidency, but to further advance their own personal agenda and career. It is especially enlightening, when that said career, is to promote a conservative agenda, when its bulwark is built on character, duty, honor and country.
God doesn't enter into this equation. Only whether I believe Bush and Miers.
The real question is why would Frum write speeches for Bush. Frum is a little disingenuous for having worked for a man he neither respects or believes in.
You think that libertarians are supporting this nomination?
Still doesn't justify throwing her under the bus, no matter what side of the argument you might stand on. It also doesn't justify the "about face" so-called Conservatives have taken as of late, after castigating the Democrats for over a year for stifling the process for casting ones aside known quality candidates through a filibuster, arguing the same argument I am arguing for giving Miers a fair up or down vote alongside a hearing.
People say lots of things with the best of intentions and then do the exact opposite when put in new situation. Without a track record there is just no way to tell.
Maybe after this ugly precedent you've set for future candidates on both sides of the aisle, you might come to your senses and realize just what sort of monster you've created and cradled all these weeks.
Last years news.
Instead, he gives us Miers of the Dallas city council, head of the TX bar, and so on.
Right. I could have told you that last year.
This has been predicted. With Rush's legal situation, he can't afford to make any enemies. He has shown a pattern since his legal problems started of criticizing the GOP when they start acting like liberals but then backpedals a few days later once the GOP explains to him that he might be on his own.
The fact that Rush even dared to speak against the administration on the Miers nomination speaks volumes.
That is very naive.
Of course it goes without saying, there weren't petition drives last year making sure Bush didn't kow tow to Democrat demands to keep his nominees from being "outside the mainstream" or "extreme". You and these so called "conservatives" were no where to be found a year ago when it really mattered. Quite frankly, if you want to know the truth, the so called "conservative" pundits and you Miers bashers didn't lift a finger to the telephone touchpad to call your Congressman to fight to ram good known quantity Conservatives through the pipe 12 months ago.
There are two irreconcilable camps regarding interpreatation of "the promise."
Did Bush promise to appoint a Justice like Scalia? <- long discussion
I believe the research shows no direct quote attributable to GWB that makes this string ..."I promise to nominate strict constructionst judges in the mold of Thomas and Scalia." However, Bush has said that he would nominate strict constructionist judges. Bush has advanced Scalia and Thomas as benchmark examples to define "strict constructioninst."
Further, VP Cheney was invloved in the following exchange ...
HANNITY: So in that sense, the President's promise, you believe, has been fulfilled, and that is that she fits the mold of a Scalia and a Thomas?CHENEY: I do.
The distinction between a verbatim quote (that doesn't exist), and a Bush promise to nominate strict constructionists does not mean he didn't "make the promise." As a matter of disambiguating "strict constructionist," Bush asserted that the examples of Scalia and Thomas were appropriate.
So, Bush DID promise a strict constructionist, and the benchmark that I was led to use to disambiguate the two words "strict constructionist" were Scalia and Thomas.
I am saying Bush "made the promise."
Vice President Cheney seems to agree with that construction.
In the alternative, one could argue that he did not make the promise -AT ALL-, or ... (see below regarding timing of delivery of the promise)
The ramifications of that, in the minds of some people, would be twofold. First, they themselves are being called liars, and second, that President Bush is not honoring a promise. Those senses strongly undermine the call to "trust him."
The one area that I see being exploited by opposing sides (and discussion of this has the effect of driving the wedge deeper), is to argue the timing of knowledge of the nominees judicial conservatism. Pro-Miers people taking the side that if she acts as a strict constructionist after being seated, the promise has been met. The dark side says "wait a minute, show us first," and as a result is labeled disloyal, untrusting, etc.
And so, the two sides are right back to the "trust me" argument when it's all done. And in that argument, there is no room for dialog.
I love it when Freepers fight...and I'm not one of them.
And you were? C'mon.
I've been complaining to my Senators since 2003, when the Senate was stalling Circuit Court justices with cloture abuse.
Still doesn't justify throwing her under the bus, no matter what side of the argument you might stand on.
I think it is worth throwing Miers are any other stealth warm and fuzzy candidate under the bus. The stakes are enormous. We aren't talking about the ambassador to New Zealand but a critical 5th vote in regards to gay marriage, property rights, quotas, partial birth abortion, etc. Conservatives want a loaded gun not a finger pointing in a pocket.
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.