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 ...
Centrists will reject her because she is a light-weight crony with no professional qualifications.
Liberals will reject her out of hand.
So where do you see this Dem support for Miers coming from ?
We all know what point you were trying to make.
You failed. You make gross generalizations and inapt analogies and think that's "debating".
Uh, no, they won't. They already had a meeting and didn't voice any initial objections. Had Miers' lack of qualifications been as glaring obvious as you state, that would not have happend.
Liberals will reject her out of hand.
We don't care about them. Without the seven Dem members of the Gang of 14, no filibuster.
It looks like she was a decent manager, but the article you cite is hardly compelling in terms of a SC nomination. If you read that article on DU in support of a Clinton nominee, would you argue for them?
Sure, keep telling yourself that.
Uh, no, they won't. They already had a meeting and didn't voice any initial objections. Had Miers' lack of qualifications been as glaring obvious as you state, that would not have happend.
Why should they commit themselves early ? If Bush wants to jump out a window why should they wish to stand in the way ? Why not wait to see how opinion develops ? And that is precisely the way it is developing. Why should they be more supportive of an unqualified crony than conservatives have been ?
Your faith in the willingness of the Democrats to reject an easy opportunity to humiliate Bush is truly, truly heartwarming.
That's not true - but of course you knew that when you said it.
I am not going to be convinced by lie, after lie, after lie. Try factual arguments for a change.
Gillespie sounded incredibly irritated and defensive on Laura's show, IMO.
I was glad she gave him a tough interview.
If you can't see why this article describes desirable qualities in a justice, I can't help you.
A dem counterpart most likely would have kept the unethical lottery employees. After all, she was put in there to clean house after GWB was elected governor.
I also have noted this unfortunate habit the anti-Miers faction has of taking one citation of her history and treating it as if it is the one and only example offered as to her qualifications. Just go along and pretend like I said this alone qualifies her, if it makes you feel somehow validated. LOL
I have no such faith.
However, even if they vote against Miers, that doesn't matter. If the GOP votes hold, she's in.
But as long as the Dem Gang of 14 Members say "no filibuster", then it doesn't matter how they eventually vote for confirmation.
And IMO their new-found power is more important than humiliating Bush. Recall that a lot of folks on the hard left were just as pissed at the Dem side of the Gang of 14 as we were at the RINOs in the Gang.
Little girl, you have no room to be instructing people on what comprises a shallow argument when you are posting prime examples.
As I suggested earlier, you need to do a little research before you adopt your unwarranted snotty tone.
Just by watching and thinking about what I see. during the Roberts process I noticed how Bush worked with Senators and got them to cooperate in the idea of a dignified process. I also noticed how much senators complained about the pressure from the interest groups. Then I added in what we know about consultation on Meirs. The coup was the meeting in which Gillespie accused the think tanks of being sexist and elitist. Everybody who has nothing to say about the pick is sounding off, but for the most part, the senate is just quietly meeting with her.
When you can't win an argument, why not result to personal insults? It's so effective, and gains you a lot of respect around FR.
The purpose of power is to score wins because that is what your base wants. The political base of either party cares nothing for Senatorial collegiality or procedural issues. They want to see their enemies driven before them, to hear the lamentation of their women. Scoring a win will lift spirits greatly going into the 2006 elections. And getting the Senate back is the only win that really matters.
How about the "new found power" of Teddy Kennedy as head of the Judiciary Committee ?
And given the total absence of independent political support for Miers because of her lack of qualifications, most of the Senate will vote against her.
"Gillespie sounded incredibly irritated and defensive on Laura's show, IMO. I was glad she gave him a tough interview."
I think she let him off WAYYY too easy. She should have demanded an apology on the spot.
And the are centrists. Just as the RINOs are. They probably get called DINOs by the hard left.
They don't have as many moonbats in their base to worry about.
And given the total absence of independent political support for Miers because of her lack of qualifications, most of the Senate will vote against her.
I'm not rushing to that conclusion. Time will have to tell. And I don't think she's nowhere near as unqualified as you make her out to be. She's done a lot of tough jobs and shows the ability to get to the bottom of matters. And she has done corporate litigation, which is probably far more difficult than the government lawyering a lot of judges did in their past.
IMO, his comments spoke for themselves. I no longer have a high opinion of the guy..."sexist", a charge a leftist would level. How convenient that Schumer is now saying the same thing about those who oppose this nomination
I'm not anti-Miers, nor have I implied that the lottery job was the "only example" cited by you or anyone else. Your smug hostility toward anyone questioning this nomination is unimpressive. If I need "validation" there are commentators on both sides of this debate -- professional pundits as well as many on this forum -- who argue more persuasively than you have.
Have a wonderful day.
I wouldn't assume the A-list conservative appellate judges would be able handle more pressure than Meirs simply by the nature of their respective jobs. Being WH Counsel and running a decent-sized law firm are quite pressure-filled jobs. In my opinion more so than wearing a robe in a high court where people bow to you all day. I'm simplifying, but you likely get my point.
Base, smase. I am not convinced that there are 50 Republican votes in the Senate for a candidate who is favored by the base. The bse is only 40% of the country. My guess is that the White House counted noses and came up short on other possibilities.
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.