I'm sorry something has you upset. Here's something to help take you to your happy place:
Posted on 10/07/2005 8:51:48 PM PDT by Urbane_Guerilla
Don't you remember the utter let-down when elder Bush broke the fundamental promise he made, "No new taxes"?
The promise was not merely a bow to the Laffer curve, it was an emotional and pyschological statement to the many people in this country who still believe in constitutional goverment, and who knew that taxation was the means to undermine constitutional government, liberty and freedom, to put it another way.
The younger Bush promised a Thomas or Scalia for the same reasons: to tell the believers in constitutional government that supporting him would mean a definitive change in the jurisprudence of this country, jurisprudence which adhered to the basic concepts in our Constitution, not to a sort of current intellectual church of what's happening now.
In both cases, there was an even deeper issue, the issue of integrity. Integrity is the first principle of conservatism. Integrity means an unflinching openness to the facts and faithful adherence to principle.
"No new taxes," "Thomas and Scalia."
Unlike the Left, conservatives usually have the integrity to call out their own, regardless of political cost. The subtle political benefit of integrity is that there are so many people (conservatives) who vote for the politician who is actually honest.
Now, it is not a matter of calling out one of our own. It is a matter of calling out a charlatan, who pretended to be one of our own.
That is incoherent. It was not implied. Why is this being put into terms of a personal attack on your integrity? Why are you taking broad strokes at fellow conservatives? The 25%(granted it's the unscientific number from the current FR poll) are adamantly arguing that the entire Conservative movement would be better served in the process of selecting a nominee if one had been picked with an established record. Including those Miers supporters who are openly anti-elitist in their stance here and in their defense of Miers, including those who are Evangelicals, even including Freeper lawyers.
I don't see how you can accept this outside of rational purview.
Been living under a rock lately? Like I said, Bush has let down a large portion of his base.
More posts than one can number saying that she is not a conservative, she's a disaster, she's Souter, or she's Kennedy... how we've been duped, etc.
But no one knows...
Lot's of people running around believing that the world has come to an end...
Two things give me peace about the Mier nominations...
One, I do trust the President... if that makes me a Bushbot, so be it...
Two, she was his vetter. She was the gatekeeper. If Owens, Brown, Estrada, Roberts' names were ever going to be placed in nomination, they had to get by her. They did... which means that she agrees with their judicial philopsy.
Why don't those who are predicting gloom and doom understand that point...
You got Brown, Owens, Estrada because you have her.
Fred has gotten more unimpressive with each passing year.
And when is the hearing scheduled again, I forgot.
Looked it up, October 18, 2005 is the tentative date.
If an established record was the requirement for the Supreme Court, the founding fathers would have written that condition in.
They did not, leaving the Court open for nominees from all walks of life and not just judges with established records.
That bears repeating.
I wouldn't some of these guys in a voting booth alone anyway.
:(
Your opinion only. A lot of people on here disagree with you.
She's been preparing for weeks, war rooming, using mock nomination scenarios, getting the questions she'll be asked fed to her by friendly Republicans on the Committee, she has at her disposal the last several years of sparring with the US Senate Committee on the Judiciary through proxies she has sent up to them, there is no great oratory tricks that Schumer will magically summon that will shoow us a glimpse of the real Harriet Miers.
Hmmmm, if she's that capable, then she's probably exactly the right pick.
You're the one who said I was insulting 25 percent of the people on this forum.
I merely pointed out that it goes both ways, a concept that never seens to dawn on you purist.
"An absolute lie; she didn't know until Sunday night."
Yes and no. His original premise was false but interestingly Miers was the one who pretended to be the democratic senators and grilled Roberts to practice for his testimony. So, I do suspect she's ready for those senators. LOL
I'm sure she picked those nominees just to throw everybody off.
You are one of the type of people that would jump out of a boat because it might spring a leak. You have nothing to indicate Roberts and Miers won't vote exaclty as a Thomas or Scalia would. But keep ranting, you are doing the party a lot of good.
Ya Right!
I seriously doubt that Senator Cornyn is going to be grilling her once these confirmation hearings begin.
But the hysteria has been fun to watch...
I'm sorry something has you upset. Here's something to help take you to your happy place:
See, that's the problem with "stealth" nominees.
You never know which way they might turn.
And many agree that Bush threw us under the bus.
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.