"So given the choice in 1988 between continuing the Reagan Revolution or making Albert "Insufferable Pr*ck" Gore President she chose the latter... God, that makes me really gung ho for her nomination. It certainly shows she's a fantabulous judge of character."
And by the way....let's take a little trip down memory lane.
In 1976, RR won the Texas primary - against sitting Pres Ford. The conservative revolution had begun, and the Republican revolution was gearing up.
In 1988, there was also a Texan, Bush 41, running for President. It would be expected that most big time Texas lawyers would support VP Bush.
Yet...she stayed with the Dem party. This is very strange.
Seems to me that it comes down to this. The pro-Bush folks here have two arguments:
1) Trust Bush.
2) She's pro life b/c she fought the ABA on being pro abort.
That's pretty slim pickens when you talk about the most important domestic action taken by this President. This is even more important than Rehnquist replacement, b/c there is an opportunity to gain here.
Anyone who believes that we are going to gain a vote on this is truly living in an alternative universe. That doesn't mean that miracoulously it won't happen, but .... no one without a conservative track record has ever "grown" into conservatism on SCOTUS. It always goes the other way.
There is no way around this. Bush betrayed his base. He promised a Scalia/Thomas.
There are puh-lenty of those folks around. Any poster on this thread could list a dozen immediately.
But he chose his buddy.
And the only response we hear is: trust Bush.
Of course there is a way around it and there is no betrayal.
He has nominated the rightmost candidate who is confirmable.
Both of those criteria are equally important. Repeat, both of those criteria are equally important. An unconfirmable nominee advances his agenda . . . how?
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.
I know one thing for sure, she as an unmarried woman will have great difficulty standing up for heterosexual marriage, life and other things. The dumpster divers of the Left are going to put tremendous pressure on her. Her lack of a traditional private life will make it VERY, VERY hard for her to help steer the court in a socially conservative direction.
I really, really hope this nomination fails.
And that assertion is a fabrication to boot. She advocated teh ABA permit all its members to vote on the position. Miers didn't express a stance either way ont he poition itself, only that all the ABA members should be given an opportunity to vote on the position before the ABA adopted it.
And this is a surprise?
Given the reality in the Senate, would ANYBODY with a proven conservative track record have any chance whatsoever? NO!
Given that reality, the ONLY way we can get a conservative appointed is if the person nominated has NO TRACK RECORD. Is this optimal? Of course not. Is this reality? YES.
ANYBODY President Bush appoints will face hysterical opposition from the evil ones. If they cannot find dirt, they will twist something to make it look like dirt. If they cannot find something to twist, they will make something up.
They will howl in protest, and then point to their own protests as evidence of the "divisiveness" of the pick. They will point to the "seriousness of the charge" when caught making things up.
They will do WHATEVER IT TAKES. There is no depth too low for them to go. It's a wonder that anyone would consent to go through this.