Posted on 10/28/2005 3:23:24 AM PDT by WaterDragon
OVER the last two elections, the Republican Party regained control of the United States Senate by electing new senators in Florida, Georgia, Minnesota, Missouri, North Carolina, South Carolina, South Dakota and Texas. These victories were attributable in large measure to the central demand made by Republican candidates, and heard and embraced by voters, that President Bush's nominees deserved an up-or-down decision on the floor of the Senate. Now, with the withdrawal of Harriet Miers under an instant, fierce and sometimes false assault from conservative pundits and activists, it will be difficult for Republican candidates to continue to make this winning argument: that Democrats have deeply damaged the integrity of the advice and consent process.
The right's embrace in the Miers nomination of tactics previously exclusive to the left - exaggeration, invective, anonymous sources, an unbroken stream of new charges, television advertisements paid for by secret sources - will make it immeasurably harder to denounce and deflect such assaults when the Democrats make them the next time around. Given the overemphasis on admittedly ambiguous speeches Miers made more than a decade ago, conservative activists will find it difficult to take on liberals in their parallel efforts to destroy some future Robert Bork...(snip)
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
I freely admit it. I don't want pro-Affirmative Action, anti-gun, pro-Roe, anti-War on Terror, and pro-illegal immigration judges, period. Clear enough? Why is that wrong? I made my opinions known many times at the ballot box in the last 16 years, and it's time someone listened.
If you read Miers' stuff, the vote would be no different were she in O'Connor's seat. Please. Miers was a bad pick, and, over the long haul, a disastrous pick. If Sandra gets one last "up yours" to conservative/pro-life people, fine if we win the war.
Someone that will vote to overturn Roe V Wade...that seems to be the main test. If you don't believe it, wait till the next nominee is named and see what the first issue talked about will be...betcha it's "how will this nominee vote on Roe V Wade."
Sadly, Constitutional Law isn't an easy crib job, and Harriet was having a tough time learning on the fly...Spector sent her a list of questions that read like a nasty exam, then insulted her and demanded that she answer more questions. She would have been utterly humiliated at the hearings, and thank God she's been spared that. The President let his heart rule his head with her nomination. Rush mentioned yesterday that on the CBS website, paranoia was rampant, they were saying Bush-the-poker-player had done it again, that Harriet wasn't his 'real' pick and that she'd been nominated to draw Lib fire. The next one is the real pick.
It's not wrong to want it, as long as we don't accuse the Dems of using a litmus test to exclude judges from consideration as a "bad thing" when we (the conservatives) do exactly the same thing.
That will never happen. It's obvious that not 1 in 10 in this thread even read the article it's based on.
Thanks. I think you're completely wrong.
The litmus test - one which I don't personally shirk from - is (a) conservative, (b) originalist not constructionist, and (c) can write a coherent judicial opinion.
What very little information we had on Miers did not bolster her profile on any one of those three "litmus tests."
I wouldn't. I would expect it.
Hugh is 180 degress wrong on so many levels, I don't know where to begin, and frankly I don't have time this morning.
All I can say is his entire political philosophy is based on a position of weakness, not strength. The problem lies in the GOPs refusal to stand and promote strong, proud conservatism. Instead, we have this milktoast, wimpy, 'compassionate' version.
Sorry I had no strong feelings either way on the Meiers nomination other than my initial dissapointment. I was willing to hear what she had to say in the hearings and listen to what she said.
To those predicting disaster for Bush from all of this, could you even imagine the democrats shooting down a Clinton SC nomination?
Yep- we're all just Bush Bots.... ;)
A business would not interview a potential employee when it was clear from the resume that the individual did not have the requiremnts for the job. The time and cost of the hearings when the outcome was already known would have been wasted.
"Litmus test" for the Rats is (a) abortion, (b) racial quotas, and (c) gay rights.
"Litmus test" to conservatives is an adherence to the principles expressed in the U.S. Constitution and other formative documents.
Hopefully you can see the extreme qualitative difference between a "litmus test" of transitory social issues, and a "litmus test" of enduring judicial principles.
I think the Dems would look like outright buffoons if they fillibustered Brown, or any of the potential nominees who've already been cleared for federal circuit Judgeships.
I say, let the Dems try and claim that the voted for Brown, Luttig, or whomever for federal Judge, but NOW think those same people are too "extreme" for SCOTUS.
Bring it ON!
Not all, but there are plenty - here on FR and elsewhere - grinding their teeth that we've made GWB "look bad", despite the fact that it was he, not his "base", that made the faulty decision on Miers.
Re: Post 21 - "I freely admit it. I don't want pro-Affirmative Action, anti-gun, pro-Roe, anti-War on Terror, and pro-illegal immigration judges, period. Clear enough? Why is that wrong? I made my opinions known many times at the ballot box in the last 16 years, and it's time someone listened."
Great post! It is time! And those who have been active have more of a right to be heard than those who do nothing except express their opinion!
Hewitt, Medved and everyone else on that little, minor league network of theirs are bought and paid for party hacks. Their DC affiliate used to be "WGOP" for heaven's sake!
Last week, a Freeper documented just how hypocritical Hewitt has been on this issue. But really, he has no choice. In real life, he may be a fine conservative. But on the air, you might as well be listening to the Scott McClellan show.
I am just going to watch.
I think that you are counting too much on the MSM showing the democrats to disadvantage. Should it be Owens who is nominated, the majority of Americans won't even know she is black, because I doubt her picture will ever make the nightly news. Should the democrats decide to filibuster, the media will probably not even mention it, and will instead blame the Republicans for being "bogged down."
We'll see.
If Miers was a bad pick (and I am willing to concede there are probably better people available) it seems to me the discussion and ultimate withdrawal could have been accomplished without such juvenile writing. The hard feelings that many of us have would have been avoided.
Maybe some people will learn something from this episode. I doubt it though, and the whole thing has left me with a decided distaste for people whose writings I admired. I will never buy another book by any of these people, because they demonstrated to me that thoughtful commentary is not what they are about.
There used to be decency and integrity in the conservative movement, and we could hold our heads high, because we knew we always stood on principle. Now, some in the movement have sunk to the level of gutter Rats. God save America.
Here's the problem. The WH through Dobson and Land have already telegraphed that the qualified women all opted out because of personal or family issues that didn't need disclosed in a hearing process. They've already telegraphed there are skeletons. Those people are essentially dead in the water.
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.