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

To: adorno
His biggest point was that Bush squandered a great opportunity to put in a conservative justice, one who will uphold the constitution and not make law from the bench and go overseas to use foreign law to effect law in the U.S.

So Rush, who basically has never met Harriet Miers, is disagreeing with those who have. Interesting. Rush has basically boxed himself in with the clueless among us.

31 posted on 10/04/2005 7:41:39 PM PDT by BigSkyFreeper ("Don't Get Stuck On Stupid!" - Lieutenant General Russell "Ragin' Cajun" Honore)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies ]


To: BigSkyFreeper

He's never said he's against her. He dances around it, but never says it. He did say that there are many who have toiled long and hard to have a chance to have a SCOTUS nomination only now to be overlooked. Hmmm, what does that sound like?


35 posted on 10/04/2005 7:44:46 PM PDT by joesbucks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies ]

To: BigSkyFreeper

>>>...clueless among us.

Clueless among us? How can it be? We have some of the greatest minds on the planet posting here. Many of whom are smart without benefit of lodging at a Holiday Inn Express...

:)


36 posted on 10/04/2005 7:45:04 PM PDT by Keith in Iowa (Liberals - Stuck on Stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies ]

To: BigSkyFreeper
So Rush, who basically has never met Harriet Miers, is disagreeing with those who have. Interesting. Rush has basically boxed himself in with the clueless among us.

Rush was not making any judgements about Miers. He is just skeptical about an unknown quantity. Rush was making the point that there are better known judges who are quite conservative and no doubt would serve the conservative base and ideals better than Miers. Bush did not choose one of Rush's preferred and known candidates. Rush is correct.
42 posted on 10/04/2005 7:49:45 PM PDT by adorno
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies ]

To: BigSkyFreeper
"So Rush, who basically has never met Harriet Miers, is disagreeing with those who have"

No, not really, he left open the possibility that Miers could work out well. His main point was that nominating her instead of someone like Brown was a missed opportunity to have a high profile public debate about what we stand for (presumably the founding traditions of America), which would also let everyone also know that the Dems are against those traditions. A missed opportunity for a home run, we settled for a base hit.

45 posted on 10/04/2005 7:50:36 PM PDT by Sam Cree (absolute reality - Miami)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies ]

To: BigSkyFreeper
So Rush, who basically has never met Harriet Miers, is disagreeing with those who have.

I never met Michael Jackson, either.

But I know he is a flaky perv.

Seriously, no one is saying Ms. Miers is a bad person or even a bad conservative.

She is just a bad pick for the US Supreme Court.

The frustrating thing is that this whole fiasco was so unnecessary.

GWB must be under too much pressure lately if he really believes this woman, as nice a born again Christian as she seems to be, is the best choice.

99 posted on 10/04/2005 8:31:15 PM PDT by Edit35
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies ]

To: BigSkyFreeper

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.


135 posted on 10/04/2005 9:16:09 PM PDT by coconutt2000 (NO MORE PEACE FOR OIL!!! DOWN WITH TYRANTS, TERRORISTS, AND TIMIDCRATS!!!! (3-T's For World Peace))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies ]

To: BigSkyFreeper

The clueless among us.
Bush is the one who said if elected he would nominate justices in the mold of Scalia and Thomas.
Do you believe Bush fulfilled his promise for the 20 years we have been waiting for this moment? To change the liberal direction of the courts.


159 posted on 10/04/2005 9:58:35 PM PDT by tennmountainman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | 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