Skip to comments.
Bush Bets Court on Untested Aide
Human Events ^
Posted on 10/07/2005 12:02:21 PM PDT by Betaille
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100 ... 181-191 next last
To: Betaille
And they have a superb reason to reject her that will be persuasive with independent voters.
61
posted on
10/07/2005 12:55:52 PM PDT
by
Sam the Sham
(A conservative party tough on illegal immigration could carry California in 2008)
To: CitizenUSA
No doubt she's a competent trial lawyer, too Another thing about her qualifications, she has only been White House Counsel for 8 months.
62
posted on
10/07/2005 12:55:52 PM PDT
by
msnimje
(If you suspect this post might need a sarcasm tag..... it does!)
To: Sam the Sham
People with no power bases, like Sowell and Williams, must sing for their supperSowell doesn't have to look to anyone to make contributions to his cause. His intellect alone is enough to ensure a decent living.
63
posted on
10/07/2005 12:56:45 PM PDT
by
dirtboy
(Drool overflowed my buffer...)
To: uncbob
The very fact that BUSH did NOT expect this backlash shows he is out of touch great point
64
posted on
10/07/2005 12:57:04 PM PDT
by
nerdgirl
To: uncbob
The very fact that BUSH did NOT expect this backlash shows he is out of touch with the conservative base and is more concerned with Reid and SchumerThe base does not confirm a nominee. He ran her past the Gang of 14 and they find her acceptable. Which means the filibuster is off the table if that holds.
65
posted on
10/07/2005 12:58:51 PM PDT
by
dirtboy
(Drool overflowed my buffer...)
To: Uncledave
I'm not sure this 60 year old Church Lady is so concerned about fitting in. Entirely possible. But with this appointment Miers is going to have "entree" like she has never had in her life. She's a nobody right now, compared to how she'll be seen as a Justice. She wouldn't be the first person to succumb to temptation. Of course, we could say the same about any of the other candidates, it just seems they've had a little more experience dealing with the pressure and proved their steadfastness.
66
posted on
10/07/2005 12:59:18 PM PDT
by
workerbee
(A person's a person no matter how small.)
To: dirtboy
He already got sandbagged by the damn RINOs once.
Did he go to the American public like Reagan did with a democrat congress
We are talking about a fight for America's future FIGHT
67
posted on
10/07/2005 1:00:00 PM PDT
by
uncbob
To: Betaille
To: dirtboy
You think they won't bail ? You think the Gang of 14 are evangelical Christians ? There is no good reason for them to support the Miers nomination.
69
posted on
10/07/2005 1:00:10 PM PDT
by
Sam the Sham
(A conservative party tough on illegal immigration could carry California in 2008)
To: Betaille
I'm still ready to bet the town house that Bush
is expecting to make a THIRD USCC nomination.
He's got 3 years left, and Judge John P. Stevens
is 85 years old! I expect to read the old man's
official resignation has hit Bush's desk by Christmas.
70
posted on
10/07/2005 1:00:25 PM PDT
by
Grendel9
(uick)
To: Sam the Sham
Nobody outside the Christian Right thinks that Miers has the qualifications for this job.I'd just like to point out that I fit into that "Christian Right" category, and I don't think she's qualified, either.
71
posted on
10/07/2005 1:01:02 PM PDT
by
aBootes
To: msnimje
Another thing about her qualifications, she has only been White House Counsel for 8 months.She has worked closely with first a governor, and then a president, for eleven years. And she wasn't a functionary, she was an integral part of Bush's team.
How many lawyers have THAT on their resume?
But at the end of the day, only two factors really matter. Will she be a constitutional literalist? And will she have enough humility, character and conviction to hold to that literalism and resist the temptation to add meaning to the Constitution?
72
posted on
10/07/2005 1:01:20 PM PDT
by
dirtboy
(Drool overflowed my buffer...)
To: dirtboy
The base does not confirm a nominee. He ran her past the Gang of 14 and they find her acceptable. Which means the filibuster is off the table if that holds.
So you are saying Bush expected this backlash and didn't care ?
73
posted on
10/07/2005 1:01:48 PM PDT
by
uncbob
To: Sam the Sham
You think they won't bail ? You think the Gang of 14 are evangelical Christians ? There is no good reason for them to support the Miers nomination.What the hell does the religious faith of the Gang of 14 have to do with it? Sheez.
The Gang of 14 will hold together because they have more power as a group than if they split apart.
74
posted on
10/07/2005 1:02:28 PM PDT
by
dirtboy
(Drool overflowed my buffer...)
To: aBootes
So do I. And I don't think she's qualified either.
I was making the point that her support base is limited to a portion of the Christian Right.
Given this fact, whatever assurances Bush thinks he has from Specter and McCain are meaningless.
75
posted on
10/07/2005 1:02:42 PM PDT
by
Sam the Sham
(A conservative party tough on illegal immigration could carry California in 2008)
To: Betaille
Any word yet on how senator Philip Uster is planning to vote?
76
posted on
10/07/2005 1:03:03 PM PDT
by
Revolting cat!
("In the end, nothing explains anything!")
To: uncbob
So you are saying Bush expected this backlash and didn't care ?No, I'm saying it was not his primary concern. He had to find a conservative he could get past the Gang of 14. And that probably wasn't easy, given taht they are all moderates and some of the RINOs were demanding a female nominee.
77
posted on
10/07/2005 1:03:30 PM PDT
by
dirtboy
(Drool overflowed my buffer...)
To: dirtboy
Religion is the only reason that has been given to support her nomination. Religion is the only qualification that has been offered. So yes, the religious faith of the Gang of 14 (or lack thereof) is a factor.
78
posted on
10/07/2005 1:04:18 PM PDT
by
Sam the Sham
(A conservative party tough on illegal immigration could carry California in 2008)
To: uncbob
Did he go to the American public like Reagan did with a democrat congressIn case you haven't noticed, Bush does not have the greatest approval ratings right now, and the electorate is strongly divided. And, once again, he's already been sandbagged.
79
posted on
10/07/2005 1:04:45 PM PDT
by
dirtboy
(Drool overflowed my buffer...)
To: dirtboy
But the Senate Republicans took that luxury away from Bush.On the contrary. Mr. Bush could nominate anyone he wished to. It is not clear that, after Mr. Robert's hearing, a better qualified nominee would have been rejected. In any case, it is best to actually be defeated before acting defeated.
80
posted on
10/07/2005 1:04:51 PM PDT
by
aBootes
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100 ... 181-191 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson