Posted on 10/05/2005 12:57:14 PM PDT by jmaroneps37
Mark Levin and Dick morris have just debated the nomination on Sean hannity's show. After listening to Levin, I am more convinced that Miers is the one I want. Levin talks a good game about not wanting judges who will re write the Constitution. We we have a person that all indications show will be an orginalist. I think Levin is more interested in a fight than actually getting the judical "No" machine we need in the Suprems Court. I think Miers will be a solid money in the bank conservative vote. Since Supreme Court Judges only get one vote, how much more could Miers do? Maybe smack Ginsberg in the chops?
Actually most of those bitching and moaning about Harriet do want judges who will legislate from the bench only they want the legislating to be in agreement with them. Look at all those who were willing to throw over the rule of law in order to "save" Terri.
"Senator Allen was on Tony Snow's radio program this morning. Allen said all his calls received were negatives on Miers. He said he hadn't decided but his callers are opposed to her."
That's the only thing that changes anything. Remember Republican senators with future careers to think about... if they vote for Miers and she turns out to be a Souter in size 6 shoes, they THEIR careers will be sunk.
For example, Pataki didn't can the anti-American 9/11 memorial until he got so many calls that he knew it would be more politically beneficial to can it then to keep it. It's all about politics.
OK, what about the result of not having a leading scholar who will serve as a beacon to a new generation of conservative lawyers as Scalia has? Is that a good result? What about setting a precedent of appointing someone who if not a friend would never have been considered? What will HRC do if she wins? Appoint Sid Blumenthal? Davdi Boises? Bosies has a more accplished legal carerr than Miers.
So, even if I accept that you are results oriented, I don't think that you are considering all of the results.
Yeah, appointing people with no paper trail is really a sign of strength.
The biggest issue for me is that for the past 50+ years, we've been trying to get control of both chambers of congress and the White House at the same time, so we could get true conservatives on the court. We are in total control and yet no one seems to have the ba!!s to use that power. We are in a position now that we could have gotten Robert Bork on the court and instead choose a phantom.
YOur simplistic prescription is short on realism. "RINOS" are elected in states which would not elect any other kind of Republican. They are better than any RATS who would take their place under your scheme.
Good plan, my concern though is that such control will just lead to power corrupting, as it has in the House. Delay used to be a great conservative. Now he is the power and porker in-chief.
W"hat about setting a precedent of appointing someone who if not a friend would never have been considered"
It was not the friendship that was determinent, it was the familiarity and assuredness of conviction that become evident from that friendship that proved decisive.
That is true.
Why you nominate someone based upon a paper trail when there is much better evidence of their beliefs. Bush has worked with Harriet for almost two decades he doesn't need a paper trail. And appointing some one to silence the <10% who make up her "conservative" critics is sheer folly the complete lack of leadership.
I think we can pretty well presume she's not a liberal. My point in citing her background in Contract Law is that she IS qualified to interpret the Constitution. Maybe more than others on the court with experience as judges.
Fair enough.
Many of us have better educations, have greater life experience, and a greater degree of common sense than he and are not the least bit intimidated by his bombast.
Celebrity does not give one any extra credits IMO.
So we presume, but don't know.
OK, so then we are assuming that Bush knows what to look for in a Constitutional Originalist. The same Bush that signed the Campaign Finance Reform bill.
Harriet Miers is an Evangelical Christian. She is a very committed EC. Part of being an EC is taking the Bible literally. People who know her for 25 years have gone on the record to point out that she believe the Bible literally and the Constitution literally. But that doesn't do it for people who don't understand EC. OK how about the fact that Focus on the family backs her. She was described by her one time campaign manager ( ran for something in 1989) Described her as being extremely pro life?
Proof? Blood on a piece of paper proof, no but if there were, we would have a battle royal over her.
Those who are don't trust W are doing the same thing liberals did in response to the horror stories in NOLA. They showed their real feelings about Black people by being so willing to believe every bad story about their conduct. One tenth of one percent of those stories were true. Now these "conservatives" who have so quickly jumped to mock W as stupid, etc. have proved that deep down inside they agree with Chuck Schumer' "dumb frat boy" crap.and have believed it all along. Friends like that....
Fair enough.
"Conservatives just cannot mentally and emotionally accept it when they win. They always think it's a trick".
Rush has said this very thing, more than once.
LLS
It's Northeastern elitist vs. Texas bias.
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.