This says it all.
Posted on 10/03/2005 6:31:17 AM PDT by governsleastgovernsbest
I trust Pres. Bush over this appointment rather than that former liberal, Bill Kristol.
Which must have been most of the South, since they went with him on "Super Tuesday"....including my mother.
Why should we have to? The nominee should be able to stand on her own record, not the word of the person who nominated her.
Additionally, why not pick someone in their early 50's?
BTW, you still can't coach footbal.
I hate to say it, but the President is really testing our trust.
This says it all.
I can't coach football, that's true. But my memory about politics and elections is pretty good. Gore was said to be cut from the same mold as Jimmy Carter, a southern Democrat, moderate--even conservative in many ways. That's one reason why Dukakis (sp!?) got the nomination.
I told him what Carter was really like and to my pleasant surprise he changed his mind and oppossed Carter
PP objecting? I read someplace here that Miers helped write the Partial Birth Abortion law.
She has donated to pro-life candidates, including at least one outside her state. She led a fight in the ABA to get them to rescind their pro-choice position.
In addition to all of this, she was the leading force in recommending Janice Rogers Brown, Priscilla Owen, Miguel Estrada, and all of the other judges that people are saying would be a better choice than her.
I understand that pepople want someone who has "Pro-Life" tattooed on his/her forehead. That candidate would not get confirmed.
After the contentious fight over court nominees and the much-talked about compromise, several senators including Susan Collins specifically asked the President to NOT send someone who is a contentious nominee.
Ms. Meiers is stealth because of that request; it is obvious she is not a liberal, and is probably pretty conservative, based on her life history.
And if people on the right would stick with the President on things like the Katrina debacle instead of immediately wringing their hands and attacking the President, perhaps he wouldn't have to pay attention to Susan Collins.
I am active in the party of my choice, but I don't vote on party lines. I vote for and support those who are most in accord with my principles. I oppose those who are not. I also have an annoying habit of thinking for myself, which annoys the heck out of the Republibots here.
The problem with this is that the gang of five who voted for New London and against property rights are still on the court: Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Breyer and Ginsburg. President Bush has just replaced two of the Justices who voted correctly.
Did it make you feel superior to post that drivel?
I'm afraid my apprehensions have been largly borne out.
Well, Harriet may not be ready for a career in modeling, but she is a true beauty compared to Ruth Bader Ginsburg, pictured above.
True enough. However, I don't think the President is nominating a Souter this time around. I can see that many FReepers are unhappy with this choice. I prefer to wait and watch. We may know more about her judicial philosophy in the days to follow.
Kristol supported McCain for President against Bush. He lost all of my respect then. I have faith and trust in President Bush.
And Souter? And Kennedy?
We've been Bush-wacked.
He helped him get elected twice and now that he doesn't need us, he gvae us the fickle finger of fate.
Harriet Miers isn't a Justice Souter pick, so don't be silly. It is a solid, B+ pick. The first President Bush didn't know David Souter, but trusted Chief of Staff Sunnunu and Senator Rudman. The first President Bush got burned badly because he trusted the enthusiams of others.
The second President Bush knows Harriet Miers, and knows her well. The White House Counsel is an unknown to most SCOTUS observors, but not to the president, who has seen her at work for great lengths of years and in very different situations, including as an advisor in wartime. Leonard Leo is very happy with the choice, which ought to be enough for most conservatices.
As I wrote last night, Judges Luttig and McConnell are the most qualified nominees out there, but I think from the start that the president must have decided that this seat would be given to a woman, and it is very hard to argue that she is not the most qualified woman to be on the SCOTUS for the simple reason that she has been in the White House for many years.
When Chief Justice Roberts was nominated, I wrote a piece for the Weekly Standard on the importance of Executive Branch experience, "The Presidents' Man." That piece focused on John Roberts' service in the Counsel's Office under Reagan, and concluded that his nomination brought
to the highest court the sort of experience it deserves among its members, especially in a time of war. It can only help all the justices, even those who will vigorously disagree with the new justice from time to time, to have within their number a genuine voice of experience from within the inner circles of presidential decision-making.
The Chief Justice's experience did not, however, include GWOT experience, and it is here that Miers has a decisive advantage. Consider that none of the Justices, not even the new Chief, has seen the battlefield in the GWOT from the perspective or with the depth of knowledge as has the soon to be Justice Miers. The Counsel to the President has seen it all, and knows what the President knows, the Secretaries of State and Defense, the Joint Chiefs and the Attorney General.
I suspect that the President thinks first and foremost about the GWOT each morning, and that this choice for SCOTUS brings to that bench another Article II inclined justice with the sort of experience that no one inside the Court will have.
If there is another opening, we will get the Attorney General (Please NO!)[bold mine], and for the first time in I don't know how long, there will be a block of Article II enthusiasts within the preserve of Article III. If we get two more, a Justice Luttig or McConnell will rise.
The president is a poker player in a long game. He's decided to take a sure win with a good sized pot. I trust him. So should his supporters.
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.