Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: dalebert

"I think Bush may be wiser than we give him credit for. And I don't think he has made that many misteps."

Although I too had wanted a duel with the dems, I am trusting Bush more on his choice for the following reasons:

1) He knows this woman and respects her. It's not cronyism.
He really knows what she believes. Yes, it comes down to trust, and there is something about Bush that continues to make me believe and trust in him.

2) I like that she has changed parties. Converts make dogmatic true believers ( like Reagan ).

3) I think since the dems can't sink our candidates by direct attacks,they are using reverse psychology to divide us, and we shouldn't fall for false tautalogies, ala - "If Reid likes her, she can't be good." The dems will try anything - anything !

4) Finally, unlike George Will who believes intelligence trumps character, I believe just the opposite. It's why we elected Bush, right ?
It's the intellectual elites who have changed philosophies once appointed to the court, not the ones with character ( like Thomas; yes, he is an intellectual, but when I hear him speak I know I am in the presence of a profoundly sincere and genuine human being. His character trumps his intelligence.
We need more like him, and I hope I am correct in seeing the same humility and depth of character in Miers.




109 posted on 10/04/2005 8:42:44 PM PDT by A'elian' nation
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies ]


To: A'elian' nation

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?


122 posted on 10/04/2005 8:56:09 PM PDT by Pyncho (Success through excess)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies ]

To: A'elian' nation
2) I like that she has changed parties. Converts make dogmatic true believers ( like Reagan ).

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...

124 posted on 10/04/2005 8:58:16 PM PDT by LRS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson