Posted on 10/06/2005 8:54:53 AM PDT by cgk
Edited on 10/06/2005 9:03:34 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
WASHINGTON -- When in 1962 Edward Moore Kennedy ran for his brother's seat in the Senate, his opponent famously said that if Kennedy's name had been Edward Moore, his candidacy would have been a joke. If Harriet Miers were not a crony of the president of the United States, her nomination to the Supreme Court would be a joke, as it would have occurred to no one else to nominate her.
(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...
If Harriet Miers turns out to be a failure in her testimony, I will withdraw my support.
Right now, I think that she is the one originalist who can squeak through because she doesn't have much of a paper trail. I don't imagine that we will get any votes from democrats. My concern is holding onto the Republican squishes.
I also find it regrettable that this argument has deteriorated into a series of insults about the President and Ms. Miers, as well as between Freeper in these threads.
I am concerned that the pent-up rage at the liberals has been transferred to the President as the most convenient target. Krauthammer himself says that we needed to have a battle over this.
At some point, we do. I don't much like the idea of putting a court nominee in the middle of such a fight, however. I also don't want to see the Senate bogged down in a fight when there are important bills to pass.
It would be helpful if someone set up a series of debates. Our side could field our best debaters, an the democrats could choose an equal number from their side.
PBS could finally make itself useful and air them, and we could spend some money promoting it. Maybe we could make it cool to be conservative, sort of like "Survivor."
Sounds like a flippant idea, but I really would like to see a few liberals cut down to size, but this wasn't a good time to do it.
Yes, this point could argue for Miers. I am not happy with the nomination at all, however. GWB has rammed a lot of junk (CFR, NCLB, Medicaid pt D, etc) down my throat, with only the judiciary appointments possibly to redeem him. And now he's blown even that, IMO.
So was Ken Starr at one time. He's endorsed Miers.
it's called "demonzing" those that disagree with you.
these clowns know damn well that freepers are not elitist
This is not a multiple choice test.
This is now a yes/no question.
The president gets to pick his choice. The End.
Now it goes to advice and consent.
The "runner ups" are only relevant if the Miss. America is not able to fullfill her duties.
Meirs won.
I never knew that! :-)
Because they have a strong conservative record, and they aren't Bush's former personal lawyer.
Of course. Bork didn't like the RTKBA, Miers does.
Me too. The funny thing is, the same thing has happened to Meirs that happened to Bush. They've talked down her intelleigence so much (in contradistinction to the other "Stellar candidates") that most of us are expecting her testimony to be about as coherent as Jocelyn Elders'. She WILL look brilliant compared to the expectations that have been set (and in delicious irony, those low expectations will have been set by her opponents).
Yeah, so? Did anyone state otherwise? None of us stated that he doesn't have the choice. We stated it was a bad one.
What's also true is these elites with bruised feelings have never met the woman. Those who know her, heap praise on her, those who don't critcize Bush's bad judgement.
That is a good observation!
That's why there's a vote. See how this works?
They've worked together on a number of occasions in the past 15 years.
Since she has no record..
Sure she does, you're just unwittingly ignoring it.
That said, I'm just not sure we are going to learn anything about Miers during her Senate testimony. Senators are simply not well equipped to ask the right questions, and most nominees take the "Ginsburg Approach" on the tough questions. That's part of the reason why I've been so upset about Miers lack of a paper trail or some history so that we can assess her philosophy more fully.
I really do think that the best rationale that I've seen so far for this nominee is that political reality in the Senate compels it. And while that excuses Bush somewhat, it really fires me up to get rid of some these darn RINOS, like McCain and Chaffee. But Bush hasn't been good on this score either (supporting Chaffee's re-election). Arggh! Its like a circle of pain. Keeps cycling back.
We should have insisted that Frist push the button on the nuclear option last spring. We should have insisted that the party discipline RINO's like Chaffee by supporting conservative primary challengers or pimping them on committee assignments or...something.
I don't know where you came down on the whole "Gang of 14" fiasco, but I just knew that it was going to bite us all in the rear when the big prize (SCOTUS nomination opportunity) came up.
Finally, the state of the intraparty debate tells you this was a political mistake and just how badly the conservative movement is spoiling (rightly or wrongly) for a fight to avenge what happened to Bork in 1987. I apologize if I've played a role in the deterioration of the tone, but I, like many others, felt that this moment was reason enough to support this President through thick and thin. This just feels like a let down.
Brown went to UCLA years after Miers did. Back when Miers was going through law school, she was working her fingers to the bone in an "all boys club". Many of the elite schools wouldn't allow women into their Law Schools.
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.