Show Me
Posted on 10/03/2005 4:06:25 AM PDT by johnmecainrino
Harriet Miers
Go for it
He knows her personally
Great. Now that I know the facts, I feel much better.
Well, this is just speculation on my part, but I suspect that considering a vote in the abstract is different from being faced with one. Just because they said they wouldn't vote to confirm, doesn't mean it wouldn't happen when push comes to shove.
Exactly. I believe 'faithincowboys' may be a ....well...a won't say it. lol
(we can spread rumors and innuendos as well as they can!)
Agreed. They play hardball because they realize that they can't advance their positions through the ballot box. It is rule by judicial fiat.
What a doofus. Forget what I TYPE, you know what I "MEAN". Please go away.
No, not stupid. And definitely not conservative.
Coming from someone with no personal experience makes it easy to understand just how ridiculous these statements are.
Remember: W plays chess not checkers - He is always looking at the big picture.
She seems to like the abuse she's taking because she keeps posting them.
Telling, IMO.
"Of course there is a way around it and there is no betrayal.
He has nominated the rightmost candidate who is confirmable."
I would prefer a conservative President who is not scared to fight.
Bring it on you mf's on the judiciary committee. Let's rumble. If you knock it down, well, at least we would relish a fight over principle.
GWB took the coward's way out. He has basically said that he is scared of a fight, even with his 55 senators.
Just fyi, Reagan nominated Bork, I believe in 1987. The GOP had less than 50 senators then. Reagan did the right thing.
"There is a tidbit above in the thread stating she has recently become a devout Christian. Bush would know this, and its meaning would be camouflaged in the paper trail."
This "secret knowledge" rationale is truly mind-boggling. I could really care less what her private religious views are. I want to know if she will strictly interpret the Constitution and whether she has the guts to stay the course when the Wash Post and Katie Courie turn up the heat. Certainly faith could be helpful in that regard. But not a recent faith. Why is that not obvious?
And let's face it. There are plenty of devout Christians out there who don't know diddly squat about the Constitution. They are good folks, but they are also likely to not understand our system of government and how the Constitution protects their liberty. And that's ok because they aren't going to be on SCOTUS.
But from someone on SCOTUS, I expect a hardened intellect, a rock solid commitment to the written Constitution, moral backbone, writing style, and fearlessness.
In short, I expect a Scalia and Thomas.
That is what was promised.
We did NOT get that. There is no way around that.
And the other side of this debate says in response? "Trust Bush and Rove. They have a plan."
There is a tidbit above in the thread stating she has recently become a devout Christian. Bush would know this, and its meaning would be camouflaged in the paper trail. "
Proof. Saying "everybody knows" is not proof.
And you are, as Howlin says, a prig.
I don't know why everyone is dumping on you, faithincowboys, I think you are right.
She is a terrible candidate, and I hope it fails.
Bush is screwing his base yet again.
And freepers who defend Bush on this are idiots.
It does no good to jump off a cliff just yet. When I turned on Laura Ingrahm this morning, my gut reaction was extreme disappointment, just an honest admission of how I felt initially.
The fact that we have to debate her at all and debate whether or not she is pro-life, a constructionist, gave $ to both parties, is of great concern to me. I was hoping for someone who could be pegged one way or another.
Having said all that, I don't think we ought to be freaking out. We will learn more over time, at which point we just have to hope that this is the best candidate.
For now, I have a stomach ache.
Show Me
Let's not forget that Gore was pro-life until the second Bill Clinton asked him to run with him in 1992.
Once again............what if it was GOD'S WILL for her to be single, like it was for the Apostle Paul?
Or is it just your misogyny peeking out, winston? Is it only women who have to be married to be trustworthy? Paul was OK being single because it was God's choice for his life? But Harriet will be a bad judge because she is single?
Is that how it works?
"that same logic applies to campaign finance and to prescription drugs."
Yes, actually it does....here's what I see. GWB had to make choices on where he spends his "capital" or "clout" or power....he has used that unflinchingly in only two areas:
Fighting the WOT and improving education.
On other issues, he is a realist and goes for the best available option. Sometimes he comprimises while sometimes he just negotiates for better terms. Clinton was a waffler....we never did learn of any single issue he would go to the wall for....remember welfare reform?
They weren't loving it this morning. Wonder when they changed. Maybe after reading this thread, perhaps?
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.