Posted on 10/05/2005 10:18:22 AM PDT by Big Steve
I'm sure Ms. Miers is a fine woman, hard working and decent lawyer. If her nomination was to a lower court that would be fine. Her nomination to the Supreme Court is like a little league baseball player being elected to the MLB Hall of Fame without any high school, college, minor or major league baseball experience.
This is news/activism or vanity forum material?
Brown and Owens need more time on the bench and Miers hasn't even been on the bench. ???
I am suspecting Bush knows what he's doing and we'll probably like her but he could have appointed someone with no doubt at all.
This is a vanity post. Just my opinions.
What this nomination shows is that President Bush is very much a maverick.
That's not necessarily a bad thing.
ajolympian2004's comments, while apt, and I agree with, may be less important than we think.
Here's the deal -- if I'm in a spot where I have to choose someone for something so important that it must be right, 100%, then I am not going to pour through resumes looking for the most qualified candidate. For example, if I'm in a spot where I need someone who knows about electrical engineering, I'm not going to go through the resumes of all the MIT grads if it's critically important. The person I'm going to call is one of my friends from college. Why? Because I know that when things are deadly serious she isn't going to tell me sweet stories of kitties purring and angels singing. She's going to give it to me straight. I can trust her to do the right thing. I suspect Bush is in the same spot. He can trust Miers to be a strict constructionist. Looking for a strict constructionist solely by going through judicial records and people's qualifications is how we ended up with Souter.
And then the Dems would have filibustered and we'd be in no position to go nuclear shortly after more than half of the Dem caucus voted for Roberts.
What I meant was they just got there and both when through grueling confirmation processes. I think neither want to go through another grueling process just yet.
Does it really matter if Miers is not as "brilliant" as Scalia so long as she votes with him? And maybe Scalia would be better off if he used his brains to figure out ways to make conservative coalitions win, rather than be stuck writing "brilliant" dissents.
I think we who have worked so hard since the mid 60's to stop the liberalization of our culture are bitter. But I feel that Rush, Levin and now Geo. Will have sent a strong shot to the moderate Republicans that we are p.o.'d.
It is now time to rally behind GWB. I asked myself last night if there was something better or a place I could go in the short term. There isn't. So I am left, sadly, with hoping - not trusting - Ms. Miers works out OK. She has been nominated. Nothing I can do will change that.
To keep dragging on my complaining only weakens GWB, our chances in 2006 and 2008, honestly.
After many hoursd of thourough research on Miers, i have come to believe she is a wonderful candidate. Although she lacks credentials that some believe are a necessity, I have very little doubt she will not stray from the voting patterns of Scalia and Thomas, something I can't trust Roberts on. I have found articles from long before she was nominated showing that she is personally pro-life and sensible. Although I wish Bush nominated two justices as qualified as Roberts and as Conservative as Miers, I believes Miers lack of trail is a blessing. I mean, despite what some of us think, Rogers brown would get zero Democratic votes, and would test many RINO's support of her. If she was Bork'ed, we may as well put a bullet in any President ever nominating a JRB candidate ever again, so why nominate Janice in harsh times when we can put Miers, as good as Janice, on now
Hopefully it will be Miers that ends up voting to make the government enforce the borders while Bush is still president. Wouldn't that be an interesting twist of fate?
Sort of along the same vein...I'd like to see less career politicians/lawyers in politics.
FWIW-
The reason Scalia does not figure out ways to win, is because of the choices of other GOP Presidents, including O.Connor, for Supreme Court. 5-4 wins every time.
Ironically Bush who is portrayed as a right winger, as a religious zealot, as some war mongering animal in the MSM is in reality a "moderate". Many of his nominations and positions on issues are quiet "middle of the road".
Being more on the right edge myself, I too feel like he betrayed the base which insured his reelection. Those hundreds of thousands who rallied behind him, the real "silent majority" of America which is conservative in values, hardly appreciate his watered down stance on many issues. He won with a mandate by the people based on certain values he said he had. He presented himself as a "conservative" and the fact that the MSM set him in the right wing corner did not stop his reelection. There is a reason why he got reelected! America IS a conservative nation. President Bush, it’s time to deliver!
Set a conservative in the supreme court!
Seal up the boarder.
Stop the murder of people through the removal of feeding tubes.
Don’t try to make a mark in history! Don’t chase some dream of being “liked”. Piss people off and do that which “the people” who voted for you want you to do. What the small loud mouths out there scream is inconsequential. They are the minority and didn’t vote for you anyway. You are loosing your base. If you want to go down as a mediocre President, continue to pander to those liberals in government.
Red6
Why not post your vanity on your own blog?
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.