Posted on 10/04/2005 5:27:35 PM PDT by RWR8189
Rush read part of this today.
He said, "The left hates Miers and the right hates Miers... That tells me she must be the best appointment in the last 150 years."
I would invite you to read my last two columns.
I didn't get to listen to Rush today.... what was his reaction and/or commentary to this essay? Thanks.
"President Bush is a politician trained in strategic thinking at Harvard Business School, . . ."
"The GOP is not the party which idolizes Ivy League acceptability as the criterion of intellectual and mental fitness."
Heh. There's no spinning this one into acceptability.
But for her job has WH counsel--a job Bush gave her--this nominee has credentials that any of several hundred attorneys in this country can match.
We're better than this.
A fine lawyer does not an outstanding Supreme Court justice necessarily make. And that's what we who have supported Bush deserve.
OK, crap so far!
Spin, spin, spin.
She's 60!!!
There is the possiblilty of another vacancy on the court during Bush's Presidency. Who Bush chooses should be influenced on which judge vacates the Court.
Here are some possiblities:
Antonin Scalia- Scalia has been passed over for the position of Chief Justice and he's 69 y/o. Also, he may want to leave while Bush is in office, since things are not going well for Republicans. If this happens, Bush should nominate Michael Luttig, a Constitutional conservative whose brilliant intellect would strengthen the conservative wing even if doesn't change ideologically.
Anthony Kennedy- Kennedy is getting on in years. And he presumably doesn't want a Democrat to name his replacement. His record is rather gray and mediocre, but he's far from being the worst on the court. Karen Williams would be the ideal choice here, increasing the number of women while increasing its conservativism and intellectual gravitas.
John Paul Stevens- A RINO named by Gerald Ford when the Senate had a 62 to 38 Democrat majority, Stevens was an appointment of expediency turned bad. He turns 85 and, while his health appears to be good, you never know at that age. Given Stevens liberalism, Bush can afford to put confirmability first in filling this vacancy. Chances are, most conservatives could live with an Alberto Gonzales appointment in this particular instance. And we don't know for certain that Gonzales is pro-abort. In any case, he would certainly be an improvement on Stevens.
Excellent oped. This sums up the reality very well:
It should be obvious that for his second nominee, "President Bush has to nominate a stealth candidate or take defeat in the senate. There are many conservatives who would prefer that President Bush appoint someone who can not be confirmed. That would start a fight with the Democrats that only the Democrats can win.That is pure "Stuck On Stupid." It is a fact.... many Conservatives would rather fight and lose than outsmart and win."
Wow...thanks for posting this....a reasoned, well-written discussion about the nomination that flies in the face of much of the 'doom and gloom' that has been going around the last 2 days.
I believe the World Court support was one of Farah's delusions and has been debunked.
I agree and disagree here.
First, I think we do have a bit too much bloodlust on our side. We were itching for a fight and we were mad that we did not get one.
Second, the President has kept all his promises made to the base. He is an honorable man. He asked us to trust him with Miers and we should.
However, I also agree with Rush that a fight with the Libs over a clearly conservative candidate would be quite educational for the public. It is important that we keep educating the public about why we believe in certain things and why the left believes in nothing more than the moment.
When Bush ran in 2000, we knew we were getting a man that would not fight back with the force and energy we wanted. We knew that we were getting a conservative that wanted to set a "new tone". Why do we expect different now?
He fulfilled his promise --- Miers is not another Souter - guaranteed.
Short answer: Rush back tracked considerably from his negative outlook of yesterday.
There are some key decisions coming up. The Democrats and RINOs have enough votes to decline to approve the nominees we really want. Their goal is to convince Sandra Day O'Connor to stay on to make those rulings by refusing to confirm people like Owen, Brown, Luttig, etc.
President Bush's goal is to get someone on board before those rulings who meets his criteria (judges like Scalia, Thomas). He knows Harriet Miers. His father did not know David Souter. It is understandable that conservatives are very concerned and emotional about this. Bush's legacy, not to mention the fate of the Republic, rests on these judicial appointments (and confirmations).
" believe the World Court support was one of Farah's delusions and has been debunked."
If so please post link- thanks in advance
I agree totally with your claim.
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.