Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Bush on the Edge ("There is Almost No Enthusiasm for Her [Harriet Miers'] Nomination...")
Washington Times ^ | 10/26/2005 | Tony Blankley

Posted on 10/25/2005 11:57:05 PM PDT by KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 201-208 next last
To: Steve_Stifler

Agreed.


41 posted on 10/26/2005 5:29:52 AM PDT by TAdams8591 (It's the Supreme Court, stupid!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle
no enthusiasm for Miers

I agree with that.

I've supported the president on her nomination from the beginning, but I've placed my hopes on the hearings bringing out the information needed to make a better decision.

"Waiting to get more info" is hardly an "enthusiastic" endorsement. So far, I'm OK with her resume, her pro-gun, and her pro-life positions. I'm not OK with her support of "proportional" affirmative action.

42 posted on 10/26/2005 5:35:40 AM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bommer
Politely... since his last Crawford vacation, the boy's been 'off-his-feed'... 'not-on-his-game'.

Impolitely... simply 'stuck-on-stupid'.

43 posted on 10/26/2005 5:41:02 AM PDT by johnny7 (“What now? Let me tell you what now.”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle

I saw on tv this morning how Bush was going to make yet another push for Harriet (she's giving a speech, or something . . . ). This is getting more and more ridiculous, not to mention pathetic, by the day. It's reminding me of when Al Gore remade himself over and over hoping he would eventually take.


44 posted on 10/26/2005 5:47:49 AM PDT by gop_gene
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cynicom

He needs to replace the nomination with someone who is VERY pro-gun (2nd Amendment) and is very pro-life. Yes, there will be a battle but we are prepared for that and we expect the MAJORITY to act like one and muscle through the fight and appoint a true conservative/constitutionalist judge to the bench. That is, after all, why we fought to elect these people.

If we get another Ginsburg or Stevens, I'm done with the party for good.

I want Roe vs. Wade overturned, I want the 86 MG ban overturned, I want my freaking rights back that have been stolen over the last 40+ years by the liberal/communist establishment.

Mike


45 posted on 10/26/2005 5:50:01 AM PDT by BCR #226
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: TAdams8591; BCR #226; gop_gene; libstripper; johnny7; KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle; xzins
Insider

Posted on October 25th, 2005 at 2:10 pm.

About 'Susan Estrich defends Miers'.

Susan “I’m the most progressive liberal of all liberals” Estrich has already defended Miers on Fox News on several occations, as has Bob “Mr. Democrat” Shrum; both have said that “She’s not an ideologue”, which is of course a liberal code word for you-know-what. Shrum also said that “I’ve known Harriet for years”…(Sigh).

http://www.confirmthem.com/?p=1704

Yes, that Bob Shrum.

46 posted on 10/26/2005 5:53:48 AM PDT by Do not dub me shapka broham ("We don't want a Supreme Court justice just like George W. Bush. We can do better.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: DTogo

Stupid me thought after 9/11 happened that we would finally tackle this problem. But it was obvious to me at that moment that GWB is more about hispandering than actually doing anything about this problem.

There is simply no excuse the bots can come up with for this. After 9/11 he had the whole country behind him and everyone would have bacjed it.


47 posted on 10/26/2005 5:54:08 AM PDT by chris1 ("Make the other guy die for his country" - George S. Patton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: BCR #226
I was never a party person. My Father was a hard shelled conservative that had a strong dislike for parties and politicians.

To me, being party oriented is fine as long as a person does his own thinking. Once a person follows the party line without question his self worth is gone.

48 posted on 10/26/2005 5:54:50 AM PDT by cynicom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: cynicom

Wait till the march of the bots begins. They will smear you, trample you and call you silly names.


49 posted on 10/26/2005 5:58:53 AM PDT by chris1 ("Make the other guy die for his country" - George S. Patton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Do not dub me shapka broham
*** This is Abe Fortas revisited.***

Now you did it. You'll be getting the "who's Abe Fortas and what did he do" question :-)

But you're right, this is pretty close. As close I guess in 'modern' history (for us old guys).

50 posted on 10/26/2005 5:59:01 AM PDT by Condor51 (Leftists are moral and intellectual parasites - Standing Wolf)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: xzins
I've supported the president on her nomination from the beginning, but I've placed my hopes on the hearings bringing out the information needed to make a better decision.

I got to wondering this morning, not about your personal position BTW - your post just triggered the thought, that the "true believers" can't really change their mind about Ms. Miers based on the hearings either.

If Bush made a good pick, as the pro-Miers people assert, how could hearings change that trust? If her performance comes off as "weak," it can be attributed to having a bad week or something. But it can't be because Ms. Miers is the wrong person for the Court.

IOW, a defender who stands by Miers being a good pick is asserting that she's a good pick for the Court, period. Would the President make a pick that was not? If he would (pick a nominee who is not suitable for the Court), then he is not trustworthy.

Those who hold firm to the "trust GWB" defense cannot change their position with respect to the Miers pick on the basis of her performance at the hearings. To do so would mean their trust was misplaced.

GWB's pick had to account not only for her judicial philosophy, but also for her mental ability. Indeed, her outstanding career has been advanced as evidence of her mental ability and energetic drive. To a "trust GWB" adherent, the fact that GWB picked he means, per se, that she possesses the required intellect. And neither Ms. Miers written answers, or answers during the hearings can change that.

51 posted on 10/26/2005 5:59:05 AM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: msnimje; jeltz25; Bommer; Cobra64; cynicom; SkyPilot; flashbunny; Stellar Dendrite; OldFriend; ...
Richard

Posted on October 25th, 2005 at 2:12 pm.

About 'Susan Estrich defends Miers'.

This is the second feminist liberal columnist to support Miers. The first was Ellen Goodman on Sunday.

With friends and agruments like these, Miers doesn’t need any enemies, sexist or otherwise.

Remember, the “Sisterhood” is a liberal force too powerful for mere mortals to oppose.

Yes, that Ellen Goodman.

52 posted on 10/26/2005 5:59:42 AM PDT by Do not dub me shapka broham ("We don't want a Supreme Court justice just like George W. Bush. We can do better.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

http://www.confirmthem.com/?p=1704


53 posted on 10/26/2005 6:00:17 AM PDT by Do not dub me shapka broham ("We don't want a Supreme Court justice just like George W. Bush. We can do better.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: chris1
Wait till the march of the bots begins. They will smear you, trample you and call you silly names.

Allow me to begin, "you ignorant fool."

;-)

54 posted on 10/26/2005 6:00:50 AM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: cynicom

I agree... I'm just realizing how committed I'm going to have to be. From now on, I'm voting only for those people that support what I support. Anything less, and I'll write in a protest vote or leave it blank.

Mike


55 posted on 10/26/2005 6:01:16 AM PDT by BCR #226
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: jeltz25
***although, to be fair, Fortas was on the SC already.***

True but his elevation to CJ was scuttled by his own demoncrat party. That's why Dirksen called off the filibuster, he didn't need one.

And besides his tiny legal problem, Fortas was an LBJ crony. That mirrors Miers to a tee.

Just say NO to Cronies!

56 posted on 10/26/2005 6:06:00 AM PDT by Condor51 (Leftists are moral and intellectual parasites - Standing Wolf)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt
Those who hold firm to the "trust GWB" defense cannot change their position with respect to the Miers pick on the basis of her performance at the hearings. To do so would mean their trust was misplaced.

I became a conservative during Ronald Reagan's tenure. "TRUST BUT VERIFY."

It is possible to trust someone, but also to look for more information. The president is not some divine figure to me; he's a fallible human being.

My approach has been to keep a score sheet of facts with pro and con sides.

The "con" side has two items on it: (1) Supports proportional affirmative action, (2) Turned in a weak questionaire to the Senate Judiciary Committee (she should have known better in this climate)

57 posted on 10/26/2005 6:07:07 AM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: chris1
Silly names??? The obscene and profane names they use are indicative of their own characters. Some FR IMs I get would curl ones hair. (Luckily I have no hair)
58 posted on 10/26/2005 6:10:00 AM PDT by cynicom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Bommer
IMO, this is a situation where the head of the search committee selected herself for the position. "Mr. President, I've looked everywhere for the most qualified candidate for you to nominate, and it's, well... me!"

Granted, the same thought process gave us Dick Cheney as VP, but Harriett Miers is no Dick Cheney (no matter how much alike they look).

59 posted on 10/26/2005 6:10:57 AM PDT by JHL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Steve_Stifler

"I'm unhappy with her selection because she doesn't have a proven track record, not because I think she's a terrible person."

I think this is the issue that most people have with her nomination.

I don't care if she's white black green or purple, male or female.

What I care about is, what proof do we have in her record, that she is a conservative who will uphold the Constitution.

So far all I can say is None.

There is no proof one way or the other what her legal convictions are and I personally am not willing to wait and see.

Been stung far too many times to continue to do that.


60 posted on 10/26/2005 6:12:29 AM PDT by Leatherneck_MT (3-7-77 (No that's not a Date))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 201-208 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson