Posted on 10/06/2005 6:25:16 PM PDT by wagglebee
"What message does this send to bright young conservative jurists? "If you believe the Constitution means what it says and should be interpreted as such, keep your mouth shut about it. Don't be a highly visible supporter of strict constructionism, or you can just forget about elevation to the High Court, no matter how deserving. Instead, be as obscure as possible, and try to become close personal friends with an ambitious politician."
Rush said something like this on his show this morning and, much as I enjoy him, I think it's a crock. Unless you believe every conservative judge is conservative ONLY only because he/she is dreaming of being on the Supreme Court, which is obviously nonsense becasue if you believe that, you believe conservatism is something you turn on and off like a faucet. And McCain aside, I don't think it is. Therefore, this is a crock, with all respect to you and Rush.
coulda fooled me around here pard.
No, it doesn't. Why? Because the *purpose* of this nomination is to not give liberals ammunition with which to defeat it.
YOU SAID..."Gang of 14 pretty much sqashed any hopes of getting a well-known conservative, so a "stealth" conservative is nominated, just as CJ Roberts."
Was Roberts confirmed primarily because he was stealth..or because he had superb credentials and was exteremely clever in his responses.
Do you think the dems really werent sure he was conservative or not?
Wouldnt one presume that a conservative president like Bush would nominate a conservative for CJ to replace Rehnquist..so wheres the stealth?
Well stated! I fully concur.
When you are elected President, you let us all know, will ya?
You heard it straight from the DUmocrats who voted against Roberts...."No paper trail", "we need more papers", "oh and by the way, where do you stand on our #1 pet issue, abortion"?
"We are not willing to sacrifice these rights because of the acts of maniacs," she concluded.
What'sa matter, she not conservative ENOUGH for you?
You wouldn't consider WAITING before you damn, would you?
I've read ad nauseum about those, who reference themselves as conservatives, eschewing the religious convictions of Ms. Miers, and anecdotal evidence thereof, while failing to remember the the Constitution of the United States of America is rooted in Judeo-Christian principles.
Such sophistry.
The opposition party has enough ammo. It defies any sense of logic that those that purport to be against those principles which define the liberal leadership of the Democrats continue to disparage, and refuse to trust in the Man from Austin.
I suggest all pause and do some introspection.
Do those that engage in histrionics over this choice, albeit important, for the Supreme Court truly believe that G.W. Bush is deliberately puting this nomination forth to undermine the principles that he has clearly enumerated?
I've never met President Bush, yet, I know him.
Now, flame on. Matters not to me.
"I don't see Judges Alioto, Luttig, Brown, or Kozinski schlepping books..."
======
That would be Supreme Court Justice Breyer blazing new trails on Steponallofus' Sunday morning show! lol.
There were similar "concerns" about Justice Thomas by some, when he was nominated by "41" (he was a "token", and worse). He is an excellent SCJ.
If Miers is as horribly inept as some seem to fear, it will be revealed during the hearings. According to some it will be a plus if she can string together an articulate sentence. I just can't find it in me to believe that this decent, God-fearing, president would bring dishonor on himself, his office, the Supreme Court, and this country by nominating someone that he would know is as unqualified as some seem to think.
From what I have heard she is not afraid to pull the plug on employees who can not or will not do their jobs.
She put the hammer down at the Texas Lottery when she was in charge.
No, it would mean that you were an American who respects the constitution. All this caterwauling about the choice (before the woman has even said a public word) means that you neither believe in the constitution nor trust the founding fathers. After all, they are the ones who gave the president the power to select the judges. You are now saying that doesn't matter to you, you have no faith in who the people elected, you seem to want a do over.
If you don't like the system, work the change it. Get a constitutional amendment that gives the power to select judges to a direct vote of the people. Or to make it even simpler, perhaps we could just take a poll.
Mr Rogers ...none of the justices write opinions. Their law clerks, who came out of the Ivy League do.
"There is nothing like having to meet a real-life payroll in a competitive operating environment to make Washington feel like kindergarten."
Ditto to that (having done it myself, owning a small - six person - lawfirm for the last ten years). I think Ms. Meirs' real-life experience and the having-to-live-with-it knowledge of the consequences of a judge's opinion will be to her advantage on the bench.
"The only issue most of you are concerned about is what Miers thinks about abortion"
Have you read ANY of the criticisms? Our whole point is that the Supreme Court is more than just a 9-way voting booth, and that she is unqualified regardless of her view on abortion.
"Not once do the doubting Thomas's ask about STRICT CONSTITUTIONAL interpretation - NOT ONCE!""
You are delusional! That is ALL we are asking about, and ALL we are concerned about.
"Stevens and/or Ginsburg will provide another vacancy soon enough"
There is no way in heck that Ginsburg is resigning while Bush is President. Stevens might croak, he might not, but I wouldn't bet on it. This is most likely our last chance.
"and the judges who you wanted Bush to nominate are needed where they are at and picking from that pool of qualified judges would create another nomination"
Huh?! You are starting to seem deranged and incoherent.
You are entitled to you opinion and I do respect that. I want someone who respects, honors, and makes crucial judgements based on the Constitution of the United States of America. There is no reason, in my opinion, that Harriet Miers can't be that person. However, unlike you, I have not decided whether I support her nomination or not. What I have decided, is that those who are damning her before they even know her, are irrelevant to the discussion. Those who are biased one way or another, are doing a disservice to our President, our country, and most certainly to the Republican party.
So he's catching up with you, huh?
Need razorblades?
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.