Posted on 10/10/2005 5:30:35 AM PDT by gobucks
The Republican base across the country looks more favorably on President Bush's nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court than the cluster of conservative critics who are opposing her inside the Beltway, according to a Washington Times survey of state party chairmen.
snip
Eileen Melvin, chairwoman of the Pennsylvania Republican Party, said she had just come from a meeting with state committee members in conservative Lancaster County, where she asked them what they thought of the Miers nomination. "They said we trust the president," she said.
snip
In Washington state, party Chairman Chris Vance said he e-mailed information about Miss Miers, provided by the Republican National Committee, to a statewide list of 10,000 Republican officials and grass-roots activists. "The next day, I got less than 10 e-mails out of 10,000 from people who were upset with the nomination," Mr. Vance said.
(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...
Nobody is trying to shut you up. Stop with the drama queen act!
But, there will be hearings, like it or not, and we can then get a little more information to make a determination.
He and many others of the "the Donner Party faithful" are fully aware that the smears they project as fact have been proven to be either gross exaggerations or blatenly untrue.
No doubt a check back of their postings would produce evidence of the real reason they are so vociferous.
First, I did not say make laws, I said make law. Every appeals court decision in the land is law, and cited as precedent for future lower court decisions.
Second, the problem is not when there is no constitutional principle, but where their are two constitutional principles. Let me give you an example. Suppose the Washington Post v FR case were to come before the SC. Which principle wins? Freedom of Speech and the Press, or copyright, especially when what is copyrighted is political speech (often speech actually uttered by a paid public official).
It's in the Constitution alright. In two different places, at least.
The only test is that what the states pass does not conflict with the constitution. PERIOD.
Most of what the SC hears is federal law. Where do you define the boundary of what is and is not covered by the interstate commerce clause? What is commerce? What is interstate? Perhaps we can all agree that a lot of decisions have wandered far away from common sense, and some restoration back to original principles is necessary. But common sense is not difinitive, and little that the SC actually does is so black and white.
"Since when do state party chairmen constitute "rank and file"?"
I thought the same thing. Looks like Rev. Moon is betting both sides of the coin.
I am waiting for the hearings. So should you.
"Well, we certainly wouldn't want to give any representation to Blacks and Hispanics, since they only make up 51% of the citizenship of the city of Dallas."
So you also believe we should go with statistics and let representation be dictated by percentages not qualifications--diversity and quotas in other words. I'm sure Miers will see to it that's just what we get. Do you believe in quotas and affirmative action to achieve balances in proportion to percentages? I'm sure NO had a leadership that reflected it's racial balance. That was just the ticket down there wasn't it?
I know a LOT of Republican voters and activists like this. Some of them may still vote, but they'll be leaving more and more spaces blank or considering Democrats if Republicans won't stand strong for life and marriage.
I appreciate your lesson on our constitutional obligations, one of which is to use our vote to place into office people who we believe will perform as they say they will. However Lott and Hatch have admitted that they voted for Ginsberg SOLEY because Clinton appointed her though they differed with her philosophy. I expect a Senator who takes my vote to use their intellect not someone elses. My point which I stand by is the logic of voting to confirm a nominee solely becase they were appointed in the first place makes a mockery of the process (the constitutional process BTW) and is insulting to the people who put them in office. I take it you think the Senate should be a rubber stamp for the President's choice.
Sinkspur is right. The prez needs to get rid of Miers and replace her with Janice Rogers Brown or Emilio Garza. Black women and Hispanics need more representation.
"I probably would have been in the "not sure yet" category without the heavy-handed and dishonest tactics used to generate support for the nomination. But what those tactics tell me is that if the truth were laid bare I wouldn't like it at all."
Bump to that. I decided after Roberts I'd wait and see a bit, and when Kristol started yammering about Miers I thought maybe I was right to delay comment on her nomination and give her the benefit of the doubt. But then the 'bot storm absurdly labeling the opposition 'elitist,' and Gillespie's 'sexist' line, pushed me solidly into the doubting Thomas camp.
I would like to think that my posts on FR (though sometimes sarcastic attempts at wit) have been a model of civility.
You're right, the irate postings seem to have died down a bit. Most of the people who are upset by the Miers nomination, such as myself, have become resigned that she will become confirmed.
I won't forget this, however. Rather than take out my feeling of betrayal on my hapless fellow FReepers, I'll reserve action (or inaction) for Election Day, 2006.
"Maybe at the time they were on the same wavelength as Meirs."
ROFLMAO!
>>they'll be leaving more and more spaces blank or considering Democrats if Republicans won't stand strong for
>>life and marriage.
...or limited government, or individual liberty, or devolution of power to the state and local governments, or real immigration reform, or...
I have read the constitution cover to cover (probably at least as many times as you) and find their job include advice and CONSENT, not just legislation. I find no reference to corruption in the consent responsibility, but I do think rather than corruption, the intent was to limit the ability to appoint cronies to the SCOTUS. And so it should be. Lectures on the text of the constitution which we all can see and form opinions on are no substitute to a reasonable track record which we should be able to examine and test in hearings that would give us some insight into the thinking and commitments of a nominee. The more I see of irrational attacks on folks who want more information on why this person should be confirmed the less I think she should be. While I remain open minded, I'm still not sure she should be but the more heat I get for being skeptical the more cynical I become. Not a smart strategy for those who would win doubters to their way of thinking.
I agree with you on this assessment. I will have to give them a pass. The day this nomination was announced was one of the most important moments of our time. The breathless knee jerk reaction was faster than a rabbit being chased by a Elmer Fudd on steroids.
Still, You gotta love them.
"Sinkspur is right. The prez needs to get rid of Miers and replace her with Janice Rogers Brown or Emilio Garza. Black women and Hispanics need more representation."
I certainly accept the Janice Rogers Brown part. But if Sink were a man of his word, he'd be calling for a Hispanic nominee, not some wealthy Bush crony from North Dallas.
As far as your categorizing me as a "sunshine warrior" you have no idea how absolutely wrong your are. That is the extent to which I will share my credentials, especially to a "conservative monitor".
Yes, consent, nowhere does it say that the legislators get to have a say in the procedure other than to give advice or, possibly, withhold their consent. Of course, the founding fathers assumed they would ask questions and not just knee jerk withhold consent without any firm reason other than "feelings".
"I am a Nam and Special Forces vet. You?"
Helicopter pilot. Iraq I, Somalia, various other places (you know how that goes).
Yes, you were indeed fighting the liberals at home before I was. I wasn't quite in diapers, but you've got a few years on me there.
Alright, so we're both vets, and we both want the country to do well at home and abroad.
We don't agree on this nomination. Hopefully the Republican split will not turn out to be as bad as it looks if Bush doesn't yield. I am seeing a jam dive straight into the ground, and it frustrates me.
I hope I'm wrong, but I've found I'm usually not.
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.