Posted on 10/28/2005 3:23:24 AM PDT by WaterDragon
Hewitt doing the RINO spin. [snore]
hahaha!! Read post #41
I honestly did not read your post before I posted.
What's the litmus test you RINOs say we imposed, Dawn?
Is it that the nominee must have prolife creds? Been a stellar judge? Gone to Ivy League schools?
C'mon, rev up that RINO spin, mama! This is almost as good as hearing y'all claim Miers lost because we sullied her character (with her own record, mind you--that must have been a damn dirty record of hers)!
Perhaps, but that is why Republicans should've taken a stand against Ginsberg's nomination. A president gets to nomimate whomever they choose so long as that person will uphold the constitution.
Even though Republicans didn't take a stand against Ginsberg on those grounds, they have maintained that upholding the constitution is their goal. It can be reasonably argued that Miers nomination did not meet that standard. There's no inconsistancy here.
Hugh Hewitt comes off as an inside the beltway talk show host. Is he Salem Communications (His network's) DC LOBBYIST-TALK SHOW HOST?
I stand behind everything that you state in this post. Wonderful, and thank you!
LLS
I think he's absolutely right on this. She should have been allowed to get at least to the committee. That's what hearings are for.
As for the people who declare how high-minded they were and that they were really just concerned about getting a strict constructionist, I have no idea why they felt compelled to call the woman a lesbian, announce that they thought she had probably had an abortion at some point, scream about her makeup, and use the time-honored Dem tactic of cherry-picking old writings and remarks to find something inflammatory. I have seen more rabid invective about her on this board than about people who really deserve it, such as Fat Teddy and the gang. Imagine if we put that much effort into attacking our real enemies.
I think this was a power grab, not egged on by the "Christian right" as I have seen implied by various commentators, but by the secular right and its pundits such as Kristol and Coulter. I would have preferred various other candidates, too, but I think this spectacle of destruction was completely wrong and will indeed come back to bite us.
When did we ever even TRY to stop a lib nominee??? Rules are different now, they've tried to keep bush from placing ANYONE on the court. I'd say the rules are that there are no rules! Of course, I do not expect the pubbies to do anything about it but bend over.
I don't see how that follows. In fact, this just proves it, doesn't it? If the Dems had not appointed judicial activists (read "politicians") to the courts, we would not be having this discussion. The personal beliefs of a judicial appointee are relevant only if judges view themselves as being free to ignore the law in preference of their own personal beliefs. But if the Dems are going to make personal beliefs relevant, then the conservatives are going to have to determine what those beliefs are just as are the Democrats.
If we can go back to the days when judges applied the law, and did not mould it to match their own ideology, then we won't need to deal with this. And that is what the conservatives want to do.
In fact, as we listened to how "intellectual conservatives" opposed this nomination, and were treated to diatribes about how Miers had been a democrat, no one seemed to care that Krauthammer had been Mondale's speech writer, that George Will opposed the nuclear option in the Senate, or that Bill Kristol's first choice for a GOP candidate in 2000 was Colin Powell. Consistency was only demanded of Miers.
Well, sometimes things work for the best even when things seem dark. I am glad to have seen what so many of these people are about; it will save me a lot of money at the bookstore.
That's a very neat package you've presented, but what about the actual and demonstrable fact that there was little to bolster her allegedly conservative principles?
Conservatives deserve a better nominee on that basis alone. Period.
I'm tired of this nonsense. Ann Coulter didn't pull Miers nomination, neither did Goerge Will, Krauthammer or anyone else. George Bush did.
And why? Because he was told, by Republican senators, that when the "sacred" up or down vote was taken she would be defeated, perhaps even at the committee level.
And why was that? Because she was a disater, even at the first stage of the process-the courtesy calls with the senators. It was also reported that she was a disaster at the mock preparations for the hearings.
Th nail in the coffin was the 1993 speech, where she revealed herself to be in the mold of O'Connor/Kennedy, not Scalia/Thomas.
If Bush wants to be mad at someone, look in the mirror. He broke his Scalia/Thomas mold" campaign promise, and people had the right , and duty, to point this out.
Miers was an unqualified affirmative action hire (Womans Seat on the bench)
There was very little to demonstrate that she didn't have them, either, especially since she never got a chance to speak.
BTW, politics is the "art of the possible," and one thing a candidate has to be able to do is to get confirmed, something that the Dems are never going to let happen in the case of somebody with a huge conservative paper trail. I don't think any of the pundits' favored candidates will be the next one up.
Well, I'm for "truth in reporting." I think people need to stop hiding and "come out of the closet." If gays can do it, conservatives should too.
OK, so you're effectively saying don't nominate a known conservative because the Rats won't like it?
Didn't the last two weeks illustrate anything for you?
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.