Posted on 10/27/2005 6:09:25 AM PDT by procomone
WASHINGTON - Harriet Miers withdrew her nomination to be a Supreme Court justice Thursday in the face of stiff opposition and mounting criticism about her qualifications.
Bush said he reluctantly accepted her decision to withdraw, after weeks of insisting that he did not want her to step down. He blamed her withdrawal on calls in the Senate for the release of internal White House documents that the administration has insisted were protected by executive privilege.
"It is clear that senators would not be satisfied until they gained access to internal documents concerning advice provided during her tenure at the White House — disclosures that would undermine a president's ability to receive candid counsel," Bush said. "Harriet Miers' decision demonstrates her deep respect for this essential aspect of the constitutional separation of powers — and confirms my deep respect and admiration for her."
In your first post to me you had a "feeling" I was a mindless Conservative (supporting Bush's appointments no matter what methods he used). In your next posting you apparently then had a feeling that I'm a Democrat spy!
I think your "feelings" are worth what I paid to read them.
Bush tried to avoid the showdown between his own Republican party.. or...you could argue he pushed it along?
Be care(sic) what you ask for, you may get it.....really? we might get Luttig or JRB? super sweet!
This could be the end of a Republican Senate.. We have a Republican Senate? wow! I learn something everytime I log on here.
If this doesn't cause a rupture on the right side that will set the table for the left wing Rhinos to jump ship, I don't know what will.. what was the last three weeks then? a pillow fight?
I've never seen so much name calling here. Not that it left a bruise, but it's boring and not intellectually interesting. Intelligent discussion? nope. Adhominen name calling. Yes.
Oh yeah, no whining allowed. sorry bout that. Pushing the moderate agenda is not conservative leadership. Conservatives have trusted Bush. All he has to do is trust them and this all goes away.
I couldn't agree with you more.. but can't we pick them off one by one, instead of putting them in control of our agenda?
With due respect my good FRiend.. if they exert their collective power we are going to lose big time and dread the day we ever gave these morons the upper hand when we had the game within our reach.. I hope you can see what I mean..
"Yep, he's learned that conservatives will turn on him like a pack of dogs just as fast as liberals will."
correction:
Conservatives have learned that GWB will turn on them..."
There, that's better.
Some folks can't afford to go to the Ivy League. Or have other reasons for staying closer to home. Are you happy with most of the judges on SCOTUS who have Ivy-League credentials?
I guess some people just don't understand the joy of combat.
I guess some folks want activist judges - just as long as the activism suits their agenda.
Duking it out, intellectually, can be as calm as you like.
Thomas doesn't have to duke it out. He has the words of the Consitution on his side. He calmly writes his decisions around such. No combat necessary.
I am not criticizing their income potential or method, power to them. I wish I could do what he does.
I am a Rush listener but have seen over the last few years a more grandiose format evolving. I like the energy he gives, but the extreme moments of ranting I can do without. It puts him on the level of Franken or some other emotional talking head. We win through constant and firm pressure and the truth as not delivered by MSM. Rush is like my opinion of the President, I disagree with what he says sometimes but still listen from 11-2 when I can, but he should do the same. The office has a certain amount of respect that Slick Willy dealt away, but GW has brought back. Disagree or not, but do not go on the air or in writing and criticize him by calling him uninformed, losing touch with his base, or accusing him of cronyism etc... for doing what he was elected to do. That just weakens the foundation he works from.
I feel that Rush and Ann probably voted for him so evidently they had some level of "trust" as well. If they helped elect him and felt that they had some individual influence over him more so than any other American than shame on them.
As for Ann I have never liked her or her opinions. Getting pies thrown at you does not equate with risking getting out into the political arena and letting the voters, not the advertising execs and consumer trends decide on your platform stance. When I hear her come on I turn the volume down because I can guarantee she will start yelling right after the introduction and I do not value her opinion anyway.
"Some folks want an activist conservative. I want someone who believes in restraint of judicial power"
Those two things are the same.
No, they are not. I would point to Scalia's siding with the majority in Gonzales as an example of being an activist conservative, whereas Thomas was a paragon of judicial restraint and originalist thought with his dissent in such.
I don't think Laura was saying that, either. But that DOES appear (my view, my conclusion) to be what's what as of this morning, that Bush is embodying -- as you suggest in your "resistance is futile" comment sentiment, which I DON'T agree with.
It's not unrealistic nor was it futile to persist in supporting (that means, doing what is necessary to ensure survival of) a nominee. About this, Bush has been unduly cowered and it's a big disappointment to my view.
"I guess some folks want activist judges - just as long as the activism suits their agenda."
Hmmm, let's see: reversing the harmful effects of leftist judicial activism is the moral equivalent of leftist judicual activism. That about right?
"Thomas doesn't have to duke it out."
Sure he does. He has to look at the superficially persuasive arguments of very skilled polemicists and see the fnords. Then he has to correctly apply constitutional principles in dismantling them. The word "combat" is entirely appropriate.
Uh, no. Simply ruling on the clear meaning of words in the Constitution would suffice. However, it would also deny federal activism to those on the right who seek to harness such for their own agendas.
Sure he does. He has to look at the superficially persuasive arguments of very skilled polemicists and see the fnords. Then he has to correctly apply constitutional principles in dismantling them. The word "combat" is entirely appropriate.
No combat needed. Thomas is the least combative judge on the court.
Someone explain to me why these media personalities make such an impact with voters.
Because many use these pundits to do their thinking for them. Just check the postings. God pundit spoke.
No, I didn't have that feeling at all. Sorry if I gave that impression. But, "Mindless Conservative"?
In your next posting you apparently then had a feeling that I'm a Democrat spy!
Your reference to the President of the United States and Stalin and Hitler in the same sentence was what upon rereading made me realize that you possibly might be a visitor from du.
I think your "feelings" are worth what I paid to read them.
I get the same feeling from your posts. Have a good nights sleep.
Since I have never seen the justices arm wrestle why do we need a combatant? They listen, read, listen, and issue an opinion. Once on the court they do not have to "fight".
I find it highly insulting that people think an Ivy League education is better than any other college. My state degree is just as good as any degree from New England. You get what you put into it. I am ashamned to say when I hear some has a degree from an Ivy school I immediately think elitist, blowhard until I am proven wrong. So far it is about 50/50.
I don't care if someone went to Across the Track Community College as long as they can utitlze that education. Remember John Kerry, Bill Clinton and others have Ivy League ( I count Oxford as a hoidy-toidy college ) educations and I don't respect their intellect, do any of you?
I haven't commented much about Miers. She was such the stealth candidate, that not a whole lot besides her pro-life positions. I was waiting to see how she responded in her hearing. I'd have liked to let her have her say.
As far as the President dealing from a postition of weakness, that is is own fault. He let his personal feelings overcome his judgement in this IMO. I'm not sure what kind of Justice she'd be, but I'd sure as heck prefer to see a nominee who has grappeled with the issues of the day that the court will be dealing with. Her extreme lack of trail makes me think she isn't the kind of person I want to sit on the court. Hell, I've more abou constitutional law than she has! I want someone who has put some serious thought about the role of the constitution in our republic.
"I will never forgive the anti-Miersers if that happens. I may not forgive them as it is."
Ah, now you are bringing out "the big guns"..LMBO! What are we conservatives to do now? We are busy trying to change the face of the SCOTUS, for the better and now we have the burden of knowing you may NEVER forgive us....
What to do....What to do?
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.