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]
Let me ask all of you a question that hasn't been brought up yet. If George Bush believes Miers is such a talented lawyer, why didn't George Bush hire her to argue Bush v. Gore in the Surpreme Court? Why did Bush go to a top national law firm and hire University of California educated Ted Olsen to represent him in the Supreme Court matter that was so important to him?
*crickets*
When I heard about the Miers nomination, I was disappointed. Then I thought about the politics envolved and listened to the woman. Now I think she is indeed the best nominee, because she is a solid conservative who is likely to be confirmed. Maybe some facts will come out contrawise, but they haven't thus far.
I don't understand those people who say they want a fight. Especially since they don't know they can win that fight. My best guess is that they would lose. If that happens, I don't think they will slap Bush on the back and thank him for a great dust up.
The goal is 5 votes that uphold the constitution. Miers is a step in that direction.
You do confuse elitism with intelligence and personal accomplishment don't you? Nothing left I can say to you if you just don't get it.
By the way your Highness, I do hope you can speak french.
Oh PLEZZEEE! With this line of reasoning anyone who apposes Bush is a Dem..so what's that make you?
Knock it off. I'm a wait and see person not a wet your pants and decide over night person. Get it straight.
..why didn't George Bush hire her to argue Bush v. Gore in the Surpreme Court?
Good question? Why don't you write a Democratic Senator and have him ask her at the hearings?
Previously you said of President Bush "(h)e's never hidden his intentions..." Now you say, of those who describe the Harriet Miers nomination as a stealth nomination, "I respect their opinions and they may be right." Which is it? Isn't the very definition of stealth the hiding of intentions?
I think that one of the main reasons Pres. Bush nominated Ms. Miers was to avoid a big confirmation showdown. I have argued on this thread and elsewhere that the President compromised on qualifications in order to avoid a fight. I welcome people to disagree with me, in fact I'd be a lot happier if someone managed to change my mind about this, but a lot of FReepers are dancing around the issue of qualifications vs. confirmability, and I am finding this to be almost as disappointing as the Harriet Miers nomination itself.
"There are 1,084,504 lawyers in the U.S. What distinguishes Harriet Miers from any of them other than her connection with the president? To have selected her, when conservative jurisprudence has J. Harvie Wilkinson, Michael Luttig, Michael McConnell and at least a dozen others on a bench deeper than that of the New York Yankees, is scandalous. "
That does it for me.
I'm not convinced that we can't win a Senate fight, but I do acknowledge that its a totally legitimate reason to support Miers. So far, it's like, the only reason to consider supporting her over the likes of McConnell, Owens, Luttig, et. al.
Pretty depressing though, to slog through, fighting to give the GOP a majority in the Senate, fighting to expand that majority, and then, just when the base thinks its about to get the payoff? Told "sorry kid, you haven't done enough yet. Come back and see us in 2007 and, oh, by the way, drop a few bucks in the tip jar on the way out so we can reelect Lincoln Chafee".
Ugh.
Krauthammer is right as are a host of other conservative luminaries - George Will, David Frum, John Fund, Rush Limbaugh, Bill Kristol - to mention only a few. It's a disgrace and a travesty that Bush would nominate a third-rate crony for the highest court in the land. What little we do know about this cipher is that she is a Democrat who supported the Gore campaign. It's the greatest insult to all conservatives that Bush blew an opportunity that sometimes only comes once in a generation to restore the balance of the Court in an originalist direction, especially when there is an array of conservative jurists who have established conservative track records, proven judicial temperament, and constitutional expertise. Not only should conservatives feel betrayed but ALL who take seriously the demand for the excellence required by this vitally important position. And what is Bush's sole justification? "Trust me". Somehow that gives me a very unpleasant reminder of someone who once said, "read my lips". Tragically for himself, conservatives, and the nation Bush fell to such a level of incompetence in his selection that many feel not only betrayal but -- even worse -- embarrassment that a president could commit such a travesty and keep a straight face. Those words, "God save this honorable Court" now have a radically new meaning!
Oh really?..without even taken the time to hear her speak? My, you are easy to convince.
Let me see if I can think of something else I can sell you site unseen.
Wilkinson, Luttig, and McConnell are all males. Laura made it clear she wanted the President to pick a woman. He didn't want to spend the rest of his Presidency sleeping on the couch.
"Laura made it clear she wanted the President to pick a woman. He didn't want to spend the rest of his Presidency sleeping on the couch."
Cute. But in all seriousness... there were plenty of women who would have been IDEAL for this nomination.
For us "not convinced that we can't win a Senate fight" is good enough. Let's go kick some butt. Unfortunately Bush has to worry about the good of the country. Remember Sun Tzu - never fight a battle unless you're sure you will win.
Don't be depressed. This is a victory. We're within one vote of having a Supreme Court that respects the constitution. I had given up all hope that day would ever come. Isn't that what all the hard work was about? I know, it would be fun to have a neoBork who would rub liberal noses in their legalistic droppings. But, you can't get there from here.
This is a victory. We're within one vote of having a Supreme Court that respects the constitution
Well, that's what you, Bush, Falwell, etc. say. I want to believe you. Really. I do.
I don't know. Maybe she'll unload a real stemwinder of an opening statement and I'll climb aboard the Meirs bandwagon. Until then? Consider me unimpressed.
I agree with you that confirmability is given short shrift in the Krauthammer and Will pieces. This is because President Bush himself claims that Harriet Miers is the most qualified candidate, period, and that therefore confirmability is a non-issue. I don't believe the President when he says this, which is disappointing to me since one of the things I've liked most about him is that he usually plays it so straight. Do you believe President Bush when he says that Harriet Miers is the most qualified candidate he could find? Do you, yourself, find Ms Miers to be more qualified than, say, Michael Luttig?
I did the same thing when he endorsed the Katrina Giveaway!!! It made me sad.
No.
To both questions.
Unfortunately.
By no stretch of the imagination would one have included Rehnquist among the top legal minds in the country. He was nominated because Nixon found him a better pick than his previous efforts, which were not outstanding. Looking back, does anyone doubt that Miers is a better choice than someone like Tom Clark, one of Truman's choices. Look at the whole range of people who have been appointed over the centuries. By and large Miers is a better lawyer than most. But all this stuff is pointless. You will have a change to measure her personal performance against Robert's soon enough.
The people at the forefront of the conservative movement are now apparently all liberal trolls and elitests. They were useful and admired right up until monday morning, when the failed to heed the president's request to 'trust him'.>>>
No but you guys sure have made it loud and clear that you want to sound like them thats for sure, and thats the complaint. If people cannot deviate between sounding and being, two seperate things, then I dont know what to make of the matter.
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.