Posted on 10/07/2005 12:02:21 PM PDT by Betaille
They are angry, dismayed and disheartened, but, more importantly, concerned for the fate of the Supreme Court.
The conservative reaction against President Bush’s nomination of untested White House Counsel Harriet Miers to the U.S. Supreme Court was so universal and intense that it erupted at each of the two separate meetings of activist leaders held Wednesday by Americans for Tax Reform President Grover Norquist and Free Congress Foundation Chairman Paul Weyrich.
At the Norquist meeting, conservatives targeted their ire at former Republican National Chairman Ed Gillespie, who is working with the White House on Supreme Court nominations. At the Weyrich meeting, Republican National Chairman Ken Mehlman and Tim Goeglein, White House liaison to the conservative community, found themselves in the crosshairs.
(Excerpt) Read more at humaneventsonline.com ...
Actually, IIRC, Sowell wrote that the Republican Party is a gaggle of unprincipled sleazeballs, and the Miers pick was justified on the grounds that she's the one he could slip by the weasels.
But I don't recall Bush Jr. campaigning exactly a year ago with "I don't have the guts to fight Jim Jeffords, so I'm going to nominate cyphers for the Supreme Court. Vote for me!"
So to you, "realism" is to not ask questions, toe the party line, and hope it all turns out okay.
McCain was just on Fox, refused to say outright that he would vote for Miers. Just said he was "favorably inclined" - sounds like a dodge to me.
Sure and Donald Trump and Steven Spielberg have all sorts of accomplishments - should they be nominated for the high court?
The point is whether the "accomplishments" fit the specific job requirements, in this case Texas Lotto head doesn't appear to fit the bill.
There _is no_ "best person" for this - or for ANY - Supreme Court nomination.
There _is_ a pool of qualified candidates. Their "qualifications" consist of their past writings and stands on the issues, and by expressing themselves through the years on the issues, they build up a career portfolio and _become_ "qualified".
From this pool, a president may select that person _he considers_ to be his best choice.
Of course, that is no guarantee that the person selected will, over time, live up to one's expectations. Example: Eisenhower's pick of Earl Warren.
To pick someone who DOES NOT have a track record of written opinions as evidence of his or her judicial philosophy is tantamount to a crapshoot. G.H.W. Bush tried that with David Souter; and exactly how has _he_ turned out?
Ms. Meirs may indeed turn out to be a dedicated conservative justice, possibly in the mold of Clarence Thomas. But at this time, there is no way to KNOW that, because so little is known about her.
There are dozens of conservative judges, on both the federal and state levels, who DO have established conservative credentials and who would have been as "confirmable" as Ms. Meirs.
Again, I hope Ms. Meirs evolves into a justice who will guard the Constitution and surprise conservatives. But - at this point, her performance will remain "a surprise", because so little is known of her, other than her employment relationship with G.W. Bush.
She may indeed surprise us by being a "good pick".
But for the BushBots to continue to argue that she is "the best person for the job" is flat-out ridiculous.
She isn't.
As I said, NO ONE is.
Cheers!
- John
No, it isn't.
President Bush pointed to her integrity, ethics, intellect, accomplishments, fairness and sound legal judgement.
Uh, no.
Realism is realizing that the centrists now control the nominating process.
The wind isn't blowing strongly enough in any particular direction for McVain to detect it with his moistened, upthrust finger.
So much for the 'promise' of support from the Gang of 14.
Oh, please. I suggest you do a little research before you comment if you don't know the facts.
The Dems are the ones Bush is most concerned with, and they've all said Miers initially is acceptable.
McVain, if there is political controversy around, will maintain the position that gets him the most interviews.
Enlighten us, will you? What about running the Lotto and Texas bar qualifies one to sit on SCOTUS?
With standards this low, we will get exactly the court we deserve.
As with most else surrounding this nomination -- who knows? You could be right. We can all hope you are. Make no mistake about it, they (the "Establishment") will be working on Miers from day one. Don't you agree that there were so many candidates with whom we'd have a higher level of confidence in saying, "he/she won't succumb to the pressure"? Do you believe the president owed us that confidence?
The Gang of 14’s centrist Democratic and Republican senators met and gave preliminary approval yesterday to Harriet Miers as President Bush’s nominee to replace Justice Sandra Day O’Connor on the Supreme Court.
Emerging from a meeting at the offices of Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) said, “This nomination didn’t set off any alarm bells with any of us.” P> The significance of this provisional endorsement, though presented in a low-key fashion, could be huge, for it means that unless damning evidence emerges during the Judiciary Committee’s as-yet unscheduled confirmation hearings the nominee is unlikely to be filibustered, and a party-line vote would mean confirmation. A party-line vote is far from assured because conservatives have not welcomed the nomination.
You are so trusting, dirtboy. It so happens that I have a lovely bridge for sale you might be interested in.
First, I said it is one of her accomplishments when someone else incorrectly stated that her tenure leading the Bar was the only accomplishment cited. (I'll make a sidenote that someone else later cluelessly went on to say that Religion was the only qualification cited) I then pointed out that people were uninformed when they derided the Lottery experience.
I did not herald it as the defining accomplishment or qualification.
Got that?
Now, in the wake of people wringing their hands and saying she goes to church and fearing she'll be swayed by liberals, as if she has no experience making tough decisions I look to this Lottery experience as an example of her character, decision making, legal judgement and fairness.
For you to wave a hand at Trump and Spielberg as comparable shows how silly you are being, however, here's some information:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051003/ap_on_go_su_co/miers_texas_lottery
Once again, by forming the Gang of 14, the centrists have grabbed power they did not have before within their party voting blocks. And politicians are quite prone to guard power.
Unless Miers ends up being completely objectionalbe to the Dems, they will hold, IMO.
Since when is an unqualified evangelical Christian NOT completely objectionable to the Dems ?
When said person doesn't generate enough problems with their home state Dems to jeopardize their re-election.
The Gang of 14 Dems are centrists, not liberals.
Character, decision making, legal judgement and fairness. ?
There are many democrats who qualify under that stringent standard.
Sorry, but we are debating the appointment to the highest court in our land. This woman is no standout, no scholar, and has NOT in fact demonstrated a consistant stance on conservative issues. Based on her background, we have almost no way to assess what kind of jurist she'll be - or how she'll swing. The Christian angle has been brough up again and again here because it's a large piece of the "trust Bush" argument.
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.