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

Skip to comments.

Miers Withdraws Supreme Court Nomination
Yahoo/AP ^ | 10/27/05 | Yahoo News/AP

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."


TOPICS: Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: checkbreaking; crony; cronyism; miers; officemommy; patronage; search; spolissystem
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 361-380381-400401-420421-426 next last
To: dsc

"By your definition, then, Miers was not Borked. She was opposed on valid grounds. "

Ok, what grounds? Be specific.


381 posted on 10/27/2005 9:15:11 AM PDT by untrained skeptic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 288 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy

Randy Barnett is the Austin B. Fletcher Professor of Law at Boston University and author of Restoring the Lost Constitution: The Presumption of Liberty. He argued Gonzales v. Raich in the Supreme Court last November

Not exactly an unbiased observer, I'd say. I think he greatly overstates the conclusions that can be drawn from Scalia's opinion in this case.


382 posted on 10/27/2005 9:15:28 AM PDT by dsc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 373 | View Replies]

To: MEGoody

"It's certainly obvious YOU aren't infallible."

No, I'm not, but I was good enough to see that the argument to which I responded could only rest on a presumption of Bush's infallibility.


383 posted on 10/27/2005 9:17:57 AM PDT by dsc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 379 | View Replies]

To: untrained skeptic

"Ok, what grounds? Be specific."

It's coming on 1:30 am here in Yokohama, and I'm not about to type all that in again at this time of night.

If you haven't seen valid objections in the hundreds or thousands of notes here on FR over the past few weeks, then all that could happen is a "Yes it is," "No it's not" exchange, and that wouldn't serve any purpose.


384 posted on 10/27/2005 9:22:20 AM PDT by dsc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 381 | View Replies]

To: sola_fide

The Federalist Society did not oppose Miers. Only Barnes of the Standard is worth paying attention too certainly not Krissy Kristol. Krautheimer is eclectic so I don't know what his bitch was. Don't particularly care either.

Now lets see what the Whiners can find to complain about with the next nominee.

This has been very instructive and should convince most that the Antis cannot be relied upon for anything but underhanded attacks and assistance to the RATs.


385 posted on 10/27/2005 9:28:37 AM PDT by justshutupandtakeit (Public Enemy #1, the RATmedia.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 268 | View Replies]

To: MEGoody

"But which 'conservative base' are you talking about?"

Obviously not you, as you appear not to be very much of a conservative.


386 posted on 10/27/2005 9:38:02 AM PDT by flaglady47
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 376 | View Replies]

To: Sgt_Schultze

I'm thinking Brown. She's a hard-nosed libertarian, which will ruffle the feathers of the more socialist-leaning Dems, but her lower level emphasis on the traditional social conservative idealogy will appeal to the moderates. I don't think the 7 Dems in the 14 will backtrack on her; they'll secure her the up-down (at least they should if they have any sense).


387 posted on 10/27/2005 9:46:09 AM PDT by Incitatus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Sgt_Schultze

I'm thinking Brown. She's a hard-nosed libertarian, which will ruffle the feathers of the more socialist-leaning Dems, but her lower level emphasis on the traditional social conservative idealogy will appeal to the moderates. I don't think the 7 Dems in the 14 will backtrack on her; they'll secure her the up-down (at least they should if they have any sense).


388 posted on 10/27/2005 9:46:54 AM PDT by Incitatus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Sgt_Schultze

I'm thinking Brown. She's a hard-nosed libertarian, which will ruffle the feathers of the more socialist-leaning Dems, but her lower level emphasis on the traditional social conservative idealogy will appeal to the moderates. I don't think the 7 Dems in the 14 will backtrack on her; they'll secure her the up-down (at least they should if they have any sense).


389 posted on 10/27/2005 9:49:38 AM PDT by Incitatus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: One Proud Dad

"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."

Then you appear to prefer a monarchy, where no one can criticize the king. I would assume then that you are a Bushbot, whatever Bush says or does you will go along with, and never disagree in any public forum with him. Just like people do in dictatorships. Whisper amongst themselves, but never publicly disagree.



"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."

More Bushbot talk. Why would you think they feel they have any more individual influence over him than you or I? You are making an assumption with no basis in fact. Howwever, frankly if I thought my ideas could have some influence over him, I'd go for it, just as Ann would or Rush would. We all think we've got good advice to give.


"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."

Why to you presume to know what motivates Ann Coulter. Do you know her personally? Advertising execs and consumer trends? What in heavens name does that have to do with Ann Coulter? She risked getting into the political arena bigtime. What the heck are you doing, other than posting here? She's gone a lot farther in the political arena than most, and advocates continually for conservative causes.


"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."

Ann is not, and never has been a "yeller". In fact, too often, she is talked over by the opposing side. You obviously indeed do turn the volume down or the TV off when she comes on, because you haven't a clue how she presents herself when debating with the opposition. Yelling is not something Ann does and your ignorance of her shows when you state such. I'm beginning to think you are just one of those armchair Republicans who really never gets down in the nitty gritty of politics yourself, while opining about the virtues and vices of those that do.


390 posted on 10/27/2005 9:56:13 AM PDT by flaglady47
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 346 | View Replies]

To: jec41
That is what they are demanding. They are saying that they want a guarantee on how a judge would rule before the case has been presented.

Oh I see, you mean like O'Connor, Kennedy, Souter...

391 posted on 10/27/2005 10:08:17 AM PDT by carlo3b (http://www.CookingWithCarlo.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 378 | View Replies]

To: carlo3b
"You really want this fight.. NOW? All or nothing? Well you may get your wish.."

In a word:
YES

If not now, when?

If not when we're in the majority, should we wait until the majority of our supporters have tired of spineless behavior, stayed home in droves, and given control of government back to the Leftists??

REALLY??

392 posted on 10/27/2005 10:15:38 AM PDT by Redbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies]

To: hispanichoosier
I care because there are important issues coming up before the court, amd I want a Conservative vote.
393 posted on 10/27/2005 10:19:28 AM PDT by Coldwater Creek ("Over there, Over there, we will be there until it is Over there.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 262 | View Replies]

To: JFC
"What the bleached-blonde, ditzy Ann Coulter says doesn't count. She's a national embarrassment and needs to shut her ignorant mouth."

"You are correct, she is not helping the conservative cause at all imho."

That's nice:
Unable to refute her, you descend to ad hominem attacks.

And here I thought only Dims did that.

394 posted on 10/27/2005 10:20:07 AM PDT by Redbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 220 | View Replies]

To: AxelPaulsenJr
"In the last 50 years we've had 8 "trust me" justices nominated by Republican Presidents and each has gone over to the dark side."

Were any in the above list, a member of an evangelical Christian church?"

One made a point of his membership in the Catholic Church, and that the Church adamantly opposes abortion, and that he agreed with the Church:

Anthony Kennedy
'Nuff said.

395 posted on 10/27/2005 10:23:19 AM PDT by Redbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 223 | View Replies]

To: carlo3b
Oh I see, you mean like O'Connor, Kennedy, Souter...

Like anyone who would pronounce a judgment before a hearing including yourself. Those who prejudge do not really want or need a court. Just their own agenda if it could be enforced without a court.
396 posted on 10/27/2005 10:49:18 AM PDT by jec41 (Screaming Eagle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 391 | View Replies]

To: flaglady47
Obviously not you, as you appear not to be very much of a conservative.

Based on what?

397 posted on 10/27/2005 10:50:09 AM PDT by MEGoody (Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 386 | View Replies]

To: flaglady47

Think what you will. I am not into a pissin' match about who is more what. That said I'll match my conservatism against anyone.


398 posted on 10/27/2005 10:50:30 AM PDT by One Proud Dad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 390 | View Replies]

To: dsc
No, I'm not, but I was good enough to see that the argument to which I responded could only rest on a presumption of Bush's infallibility.

Please post any comment I made which implied that Bush was infallible.

I won't hold my breath waiting for a response to that question.

399 posted on 10/27/2005 10:53:11 AM PDT by MEGoody (Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 383 | View Replies]

To: Redbob
One made a point of his membership in the Catholic Church, and that the Church adamantly opposes abortion, and that he agreed with the Church:

Anthony Kennedy 'Nuff said.

No absolute guarantees in life, eh!

400 posted on 10/27/2005 11:06:21 AM PDT by AxelPaulsenJr (Pray Daily For Our Troops and President Bush and the SAPPS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 395 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 361-380381-400401-420421-426 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