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 ...
You people would kill yourselves if George Bush told you too.>>
And you guys wonder why we are saying you sound like DUmmies.
I'm not old enough to remember it, but the conventional wisdom now seems to be that the Reagan White House got caught flat-footed, and offered up an at-best poor defense of and campaign on behalf of Bork.
Plus, now there are many alternative sources of news. The mainstream media does not dominate like it used to, so it would be harder to demonize a Scalia/Thomas type. It would be attempted, no doubt, and would succeed to an extent, but now we at least have some more weapons to fight back with.
And of course the GOP has a majority in the Senate. At least two of the GOP members of the Gang of 14 have said they would vote to pull the nuclear/constitutional trigger if their Dem counterparts deemed a candidate 'extraordinary' for ideological reasons. If a full Senate vote can be forced, then the chances are good as Bush could afford 5 defections.
It may be close. We might lose. But you never know until you try.
And unless the wretched theory of the "Living Constitution", which grants near-absolute power to the Sup Court, is thoroughly debunked and then rejected by the people, then it will never be eliminated, or even relegated to irrelevancy.
It's called "comparative reasoning".
As it stands, I probably know just about as much as you do with regards to Ms. Miers (very little), and from the outset of the announcement I have placed myself in the neutral position until I can make a better assessment of her qualifications at a later date when she is grilled at the committee hearings.
I'm hoping people who've been critical of her from the outset would just give her a chance to prove her worth.
If I have to be called a "Bushbot", so be it, doesn't bother me. Not all Bushbots are exactly thrilled to death about this nomination.
No, I don't think that would be an impeachable offense. It will be up to her to use her good judgment. The ones that need to be impeached are the ones who keep citing International Law in their findings. All I am saying is that I think Ms. Miers is another Sandra Day O'Connor. If that is what you want in a new SCOTUS, then you must be thrilled.
I've heard it said of three gang members; Graham, DeWine, and Warner, but the last article I read about it only listed the first two. Since DeWine faces reelection next year, I think he would definitely do so. I've heard Graham promise to do so several times, so I do believe that is a pretty solid two.
I don't doubt what you say about hearing the same for McCain, but I haven't heard that. The only way I could see McCain doing so is if it dawned on him that he actually needs to do well with the base to get the 2008 nomination, and that one way to get on their good graces is to side with them in this central front in the Culture War, even if it costs him some media adoration. If Bush put up a solid, well-known conservative candidate, and the Gang of 14 fell apart, and then the nuclear/constitutional option was pulled but came up one vote short, and McCain was that one vote -- then I don't think he'd have a chance in the primaries.
It's not that I've been critical necessarily of her (although in performing a "comparative analysis" it can seem that way). It's that, when placed side-by-side with others that Bush could have nominated, I don't think she comes out looking that good as a nominee.
What do you mean by "which is it?" That I respect their opions? Or that they may be right?
Why can it not be both?
To recap:
I respect my fellow Freepers and their opinions.
It may be a mistake... BUT
I'm trusting the President on this one.
I'm dimmer than a one watt light bulb so I tend to trust my gut (it's served me well so far). I agree with you that that he probably wanted to avoid a fight. I also believe the dims were expecting one and this has caught them off balance. I suspect it's a stealth nomination alright... one that's slipping right under the noses of the dims into the a seat of the Supreme Court.
Conservatives have been working for decades for this moment for a Republican president to nominate a jurist “in the mold of Scalia and Thomas” to the bench.
Harriet Miers does not meet this standard.
She does not even come close, while at least a dozen other candidates do.
President Bush is a good president, but he has made a bad choice, and conservatives must overturn this bad choice.
Email your senators, call Bill Frist, write your local newspaper, and talk with your friends – demand this nomination be withdrawn.
The temporary pain of withdrawing a nominee will be more than offset by the positive, long-term precedent of requiring future Republican presidents to nominate jurists who are a “know quantity” that all conservatives can support, not just the conservative in the White House.
Yes, he is. I believe he was hurt in a diving accident years ago.
With brilliant masterstrokes such as the Miers nomination we won't need to worry about judicial vacancies in future Republican administrations, because there will be none.
Yes, he is.
Your point being?
Shall I blame him on Canada, or blame Canada on him?
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.