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?
Are you kidding? She has helped him pick all the conservative judges that we liked so much over the last 5 years, including some we were hoping for for this nomination! Don't you think that subject has come up?
I'm sure Morris will suck your toes for this ringing endorsement.
She's not a coin toss for POTUS and his Putin comment was a political nicety that he hoped Putin will live up to.
You and others are quick to trust talking heads but not POTUS. All the paper trails in the world mean nothing, if the confirmed nominee takes a left turn. POTUS went out of his way to repeatedly state that THIS nominee would not.
After three elections, two conflicts, 9/11, etc. you would think that some of these folks would give me a break. Something toxic has been injected into the camp over the last three days.
At this point, I have very little enthusiasm about going to the mat for this party any more.
Working with someone closely formulating judicial picks and vetting....you wouldn't have to ask or discuss. You would have to be an imbecile not to know precisely where they stand and how their mind works.
I don't know Harriet Miers. I suspect no one on this thread knows her. Whichever side you take on her nomination, it is NOT based upon your knowledge of what she will or will not do on the bench.
Those who support the nomination are willing to trust the president, who has done very well with his judicial nominations to date, and who certainly does not want to knowingly put a liberal on the bench.
My impression (and Rush Limbaugh said this explicitly on his show today) is that many conservatives don't want so much a conservative vote on the Supreme Court as an opportunity to: enact the nuclear/constitutional option; rub the dems' nose in it because Bush won; put one of its "known quantities" such as Janice Brown or another conservative "elite" on the bench. This last I sense is, as much as anything else, a desire to save face for not anticipating that Miers' nomination would happen, and to oppose anyone who is not an Ivy leaguer.
As for me, if I can be assured that Miers will sign on to Roberts' opinions, I will take her gladly, and the conservative majority that follows. I don't care about panache on the bench, I just want the decisions to be right.
Fine, but I don't see any evidence for (or against) that in anything I've read about her. How is she going to manage when the proper Constitutional result is not what she feels is the morally correct result? I feel as if W has appointed a first-rate roofer when what he really needs is an architect.
The president has been engaged in the WOT. I don't think he has asked for her reaction to the Lochner era, Korematsu, or the Youngstown Steel case.
Oh come on. The line of conservatives lining up to give Dubya a kick in the pants well in advance of any particular reason to do so rivals the opening of new Star Wars movie.
I'm not happy with a lot of things this President has done regarding the budget and domestic spending, but I have had precious little to complain about regarding his judicial appointments. At least in that case, he has won the right to some benefit of the doubt.
I don't think that Bush was focusing that closely on the selections. He wasn't reading opinions and law review articles. He delegated that to his staff.
Worth repeating. :)
You mean like when he lets Congress spend money like drunken sailors?
The same way justices have managed that conundrum for 200+ years.
Take your pick: Either the President has been engaged in the process of picking justices (meaning judicial philosophy was likely discussed between them) or Harriet Miers has been picking them for him. In either case, you have little fret about Miers.
As for specific cases, I thought the concern was judicial philosophy rather than how she'll promise to vote on specific cases. She's to be a justice, not a legislator, you know. It is supposed to be liberals who demand guarantees from justices in advance about specific issues.
Don't you bet on that.
Yeah. Some of those on your side put it there.
There have been accusations of lesbianism, dishonesty, and opportunism leveled against Miers, with no evidence. And that was just in the first 24 hours after the announcement.
I think that Justices who turned lefty once appointed, are why so many conservatives are frightened of Harriet Miers. I know that's how I feel. I wanted a nominee who is truly conservative in every aspect, not some unknown quantity. Big fight during the hearing process - let it happen! And no, I don't want to see a fight. What I don't want is another Souter, O'Connor, etc.
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.