Posted on 10/04/2005 7:16:56 PM PDT by buzzyboop
Ok, never posted vanity thread, but Rush is on Greta now. He is summarizing the arguments he made on his show regarding Harriet Miers.
Also, his Slickness is also on Greta's show tonight. Rush is the bigger coup, though. Wasn't the last TV interview he did with Letterman??
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
How? He's the one who sent JRB, after Miers vetted her, up to the hill to get filibustered by the Democrats.
Forget about McCain and Graham. They are not the ones you entrust solely to carry the waters of Conservatism day in and day out.
The Meiers choice is not good for the President or the party, for two reasons:
1) She is not the best legal mind in the field, irrespective of her occupation and irrespective of how she might vote (and who knows about that, including the President, really).
2) And the S Court is not a patronage position for any President, and here Bush should be ashamed of himself.
The President may think highly of her, and I have no doubt that he does. But this is hardly ANY reason to appoint a Supreme if you are a Republican President, as opposed to a Democratic hack like LBJ (and Abe Fortus). It is very important, I think, for Republican Senators in great numbers to vote against her on the two grounds above. Are we now so craven that we're ready to settle for a vote on the Court on abortion, and not seek to put the best person on the Court who shares an originalist mindset - and let the chips then fall on particular Court votes?
Is there some reason to believe that the United States Senate would be more conservative, were we to repeal the 17th Amendment?
She may serve as a repudiation of the failed 40 years of Dim rule; sort of a SCOTUS Justice poster-child of the need to break away from the kind of flawed thinking that help lead to the debacle in New Orleans.
Add into the equation how foolish the Dims will look if they vigorously oppose her after Reid, etc seemingly endorsed her, and this pick may not be the horror some believe it to be. Time will tell...
You can't be serious. Bush nominated Miers, he has the most fault/responsibility, depending on your point of view.
"But now, the dems and gang of 14 wussies have to change position...Now they have to admit that their only reason for a change is that she is pro-life."
Nope. The Dems will raise the "no judicial exp" to invoke a filibuster. Do you really think the Spineless Repubs on the Gang of 14 will oppose one? We need two of them to break off for the nuke option. Please name them...
Right, just like he nominated JRB. Who's fault is it that JRB got filibustered? The President? You can't be that dense.
"Nope. The Dems will raise the "no judicial exp" to invoke a filibuster. "
Impossible, because they've already accepted her experience. Heck, their leader recommended her. Sorry, they are stuck.
She is old.
About 15-20 years too old. It leads me to think W isn't taking this seriously and doesn't understand the stakes. And really... if she wasn't his personal attorney, there is no way he would select her.
In an alternate universe somewhere, Bill Frist has suddenly grown a pair and told Karl that Miers can either develop a desire to spend more time with her family OR she will be defeated on the floor of the senate.
" She is not the best legal mind in the field, "
I agree with you. I'm sure she isn't.
My point was I'd rather go with character than intelligence. It's the elites that tend to flip when they don the black robes.
Thomas is my favorite SC justice because of his unparalleled character. I see that potential of character in Meirs. Just a gut feeling which is all any of us have to go on with this nomination.
Is there any attribute that character doesn't trump ?
Or they can refer to their playbook and invoke the "outside the mainstream" mantra, and the RINO's will follow right along behind. The question still remains, do the remaining true Conservative Republicans have the guts to stand up to an odd coalition of Senators, instead of hightailing it to the tall grass and Bush gets blamed?
Very well put.
My point is, if you lost your car key, do you blame your significant other? These Republican Senators are just as much to blame as President Bush.
bttt
I think Miers was a genius choice. Back when we were discussing Bush's strategy for Supreme Court picks, the idea came out that Bush purposefully delayed announcing his pick in order to smoke out the Democrats.
The Democrats took the bait and announced their preferences.
The President then, through Miers, proffered a nominee that met the superficial demands for a woman without a conservative record. The fact that the President believes that she is a conservative after his own heart is a bonus for conservatives, but will be a major sticking point for the Democrats.
Through the Miers nomination, the President has chosen the battleground. He has taken the high ground early on. His nomination of Roberts has locked the approaches the Democrats have to attack to avenues that are easily ambushed.
Everybody looks at this from the conservative stand point and panics because we have to trust the President's nominee to be what he says she is. It is a rational fear because we don't know her ourselves and there is no judicial record with which to satisfy any doubts.
But if we look at this from the Democrats point of view, they're stuck between a rock and a hard place. If they attack Harriet Miers, the "obstructionist" charges against them will be proven. If they fail to attack her, their special interest groups and liberal base will scream bloody murder to the lower circles of Hell and back.
It is funny how much more trust the Left's extremists place in Bush's ability to appoint a conservative to the bench, than those on the Right.
To tell you the truth, I think Thomas has a first-rate legal mind, and I've always thought this. Indeed, it was the Thomas hearings that permanently moved me to being a
Republican, after a long family history of being Dem. I think the worm is really turning when a Republican President, and particularly one with Bush's conservative gut instincts, settles for a lesser mind and treats the Court like some Ambassadorship. Make Harriet Ambassador to England; but don't put her on the court.
Calling me dense, eh?
The President deserves credit for where JRB is right now, correct?
So she was filibustered? She was confirmed thereafter, and would be confirmed again.
Insisting that the buck doesn't stop with the President over his own nominations is dense.
I think when the dust settles, Reid will vote No. Hell, Bayh personally introduced Roberts to the Senate with a floor speech and still voted No.
Aw'ight. That's almost exactly what I said a few posts up.
Implying that the President is the "end all, be all" with regards to the nominating process is silly. I understand the concept of "personal responsibility", it just seems to me you are missing the bigger picture. The Democrats filibustered those nominations, JRB included. If anyone was responsible for that happening, it's the Republican Senators who allowed it to happen.
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.