Posted on 10/03/2005 4:06:25 AM PDT by johnmecainrino
Harriet Miers
Being a "devout Christian" doesn't make them conservative.
How about a "devout Christian" doesn't believe in the Second Ammendment?
Abortion may be some people's only issue. I have that and others. A "devout Christian" is going to be just as dead if they start trying to take my guns.
Bloodbath? Why a bloodbath? Why that word?
How about slaughter? That's a more descriptive word. All of those nominations would have been rejected outright with the GOP RINOs leading the opposition. How would that strengthen Bush's presidency and his control of the agenda?
She may turn out to be a reliable vote.
But there is no way she will be all that we wanted and were promised. That is, she will not become a Scalia or a Thomas. She doesn't have the intellect or the track record.
I guess it's a bit naive to think that GWB would keep to that particular campaign promise. But that, plus his utter lack of conservative bf's on his domestic agenda, are what has caused the fire to rain down today.
We can hope that she will become a reliable vote.
But there is precious little evidence of that today.
Rather than rejoicing, even the most ardent GWB fans today can only muster, at best, a "let's wait and see" attitude.
C'mon, people, keep your powder dry and be patient! I know that's probably easy for me to say because I haven't been a bona fide conservative for more than a couple of years. But consider this: Miers may be an "unknown quantity" to us, but she is NOT an "unknown quantity" to the President. This hysterical, knee-jerk reaction is just what the Democrats want to see!
I don't think we want Tony Campolo on SCOTUS. But he's certainly devout.
I can't believe how many qualified jurists and legal scholars were passed over in favor of Harriet Myers.
It boggles the mind.
Manuel Miranda is absolutely correct.
This is Abe Fortas revisited.
I'm amazed that a monkey could have thrown a dart at a list of seven or eight known originalists and come up with a better pick than this.
I will take your bait. The Republican party was voted into power in the executive, and in congress, on a promise of restoring the supreme court to conservative values. They did not run saying that they would put an unqualified SMU sorority b!tch on the SC. Devout Christian or not. There are many extremely qualified conservatives that were overlooked. And most of them are also Christians.
"You are absolutely right, I'd forgotten about Zell Miller, I'd bet you can count on one hand the number of counterexamples to my assertion.
True, but she was a conservative Texas Democrat.
Okay, Stellar,
Now answer post# 2589 as that should clean things right up.
Seems folks hiding behind a screen name in ohio can't.
Tom Eaker
Suppose Bishop Gene "Vicki" Robinson, the openly gay Episcopalian bishop in New England, were nominated for the Supreme Court, this question is asked in the upcoming hearings: "Mr. Robinson, are you a devout Christian?"
Answer: "Yes, I am."
What can YOU possibly say next?
That he isn't?
There is no universally agreed upon set of values that a "devout Christian" might have. Devout Episcopalians and Quakers support abortion rights and gay marriage. Devout Catholics believe that divorce is always prohibited. It's not a standard, but many standards.
The problem with President Bush's nomination is that she is an unknown. He promised to nominate judges like Scalia and Thomas. That is what was expected of him, and that is why so many people supported him, and have been willing to bear so many disappointments, like Terri Schiavo and the open borders and high deficits and outrageous spending. The sense has been, all along, that while these other things are all bad or nasty, the Big Enchilada is the Supreme Court, and when it came down to it, Bush could be depended on to nominate staunch strict-constructionist conservatives to the Supreme Court. Pro-lifers, et al, have not been pushing Republican for 32 years to get non-pro-lifers nominated.
What has happened, instead, is two successive cases of "trust me". Folks made themselves feel good about Roberts, although Roberts never, for his own part, ever explicitly denounced abortion or Roe v. Wade. He made statements while on the job, but he also said that it's settled precedent. Instead of KNOWING where Roberts stood, as Reagan did when he named Scalia, and Bush 41 did when he named Thomas, we DON'T know where Roberts stands on Roe. We can only infer, and that is not naming a Scalia or a Thomas. However, Roberts has been given a pass, with lots of "trust me". Bush wore out the "trust me" card with Roberts. This nomination is another "trust me", and that was not the bargain. There is no way to know what will happen with this nominee for years afterwards, long after the current Republicans can be held accountable.
I note that Clinton was much more honest and straightforward about his nominees. There was no doubt whatsoever which way Ginsburg and Breyer swung. And Clinton faced a potentially hostile Senate. Bush's party controls the Senate, and he has sent up two unknown quantities. With Roberts, people decided to hope, But with this nomination, it is simply too much. This was not the deal, at least not the deal that people like me signed up for. It's a sucker punch in the gut. We were anticipating the appointment of a clear, principled, conservative and a fight on principle.
Instead, we are the ones in doubt, and the Democratic leaders are pronouncing themselves well-pleased.
Bush will get his nominee. But he has lost the trust of many today. In his calculation, that is evidently ok.
We'll have to disagree that he is a faithful Roman Catholic. The faithful priests I know are not venom spewing left wingers who delve into politics wearing a collar.
One who dazzled you or me would not be confirmed with our current senate majority, so unless a nominee were willing to be a sacrificial lamb and POTUS were willling to serve-up that nominee as canon fodder, we're just going to have to trust the judgement of the man we elected.
For all we know right now, this woman might not win confirmation. Leahy already has "concerns" --- that she is too close to POTUS and his views. :)
If she's knocked out, I think the next one will cause all hell to break loose... because at that point the Rats will have shown themselves as partisans and nothing more.
I dont have answers to those, but I've given up trying to obtain them.
BTW, you forgot to add Sandy Burglar to the list. Also CFR. The prescription drug bill.
Extremely well said. MRN
Liberals have a tendency to take your powder.
I know that's probably easy for me to say because I haven't been a bona fide conservative for more than a couple of years.
Even though I was too young to vote I watched Jimmy Carter win in '76. I watched at my school and cringed when the final tally came in. So yeah, it is easy for you to say.
But consider this: Miers may be an "unknown quantity" to us, but she is NOT an "unknown quantity" to the President.
Some of us are our doubting our faith. Especially the way Kennedy and Clinton are being hailed as heroes. Thirty years of experience trumps I haven't been a bona fide conservative for more than a couple of years. every time.
This hysterical, knee-jerk reaction is just what the Democrats want to see!
I don't care what they want to see. We have a majority in both houses and the Presidency and are still kissing their asses. Explain that.
There is an impatience that we have because we have ALL waited so long for this nomination, and now it isn't absolute or certain.
But there are very good signs that she is exactly what we've been waiting for. The President's track record is extremely good on judicial appointments, and he has proven to be trustworthy...........he means what he says. He has consistently said that he wants Originalists on the courts, and that's exactly what he has done up to this point.
I, for one, am willing to wait for evidence before convicting this woman based on rumors and trumped up charges. And I do trust the President and the Vice President's judgement on what kind of a judge she will be.
And I personally think that it's a good quality that he is not following 'our script'.........even though it causes momentary frustration and not just a little bit of angst....
Even Rush admitted that he wanted 'the fight' but was 'neutral' on the nomination.
I'll give it a crack, Tom.
* None *
* None *
In 1995, Governor George W. Bush signed our CHL Law. (... can't think of much positive on this issue as POTUS...)
John Bolton.
(Good one, Eaker...)
That's how I feel. Neutral. We'll see. It's always a crap shoot. But I trust the president.
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.