Posted on 10/10/2005 8:55:12 AM PDT by Warhammer
To be honest.... I'm more worried about Roberts than I am Miers. Roberts is smarter than everybody else in Washington. My experience is that these type of people are the ones that you need to worry about..... the ones that you may not want to trust.
I would guess that when it's all said and done, Miers will be more conservative than Roberts is.
Ya know the Bush Supporters are starting to sound like Alan Keyes Supporters.
And what are you 'waiting to see?' What do you expect will come from the confirmation hearings that will convince you this was a good nomination?
"Those that don't have the facts pound the table"
That's what hearings are for. It's not a requirement that we know everything about a candidate before he/she may be nominated. It is the duty of the Senate to ask the right questions and make the determination of whether enough has been learned to justify confirmation.
Those who can categorically state that she will not be a good judge or that she doesn't hold the correct philosophy are jumping the gun. They can't possibly know that unless they know her personally.
Anyone who can't reserve judgment until the hearings have concluded are basing that judgment on partial information at best. Those that denounce her based on that same partial information are pushing a different agenda, one that says that "information doesn't matter. Don't need that."
A BAD judge for US, is a GOOD judge for them (Dems), no? Therefore do you really think the MSM is going to report about these "bad" judges Bush has let through? No. Those are the judges they want MORE of.
We have to do our OWN research, not rely on some White House talking point memo. How many have been good? How many are crappy? Let's put a finger on it so we have a better idea of just what we're getting!
I don't agree with my wife about everything she says, or does.
LOL BTTT
I'm "waiting to see" a question that isn't so loaded.
Got one?
I'm saying let's investigate the "trust Bush", "trust Miers" claim by seeing what they've really given us over the last 4 years.
Is it really a great record, or merely so so?
"That's what hearings are for."
(sigh) Did you pay no attention to the Roberts confirmation process? We have established, after much effort, that Supreme Court nominees CAN'T answer questions about how they'll vote on specific issues since said issues may soon be adjudicated before the Court. Hence, we will find out little, if any, useful information from the confirmation process, itself.
You gave us two decisions from one judge.
Is that all you've got?
Don't put words in the mouths of others. My primary objection is that she is not a conservative heavy hitter, that she has not proven an ability to do the intellectual heavy-lifting needed to decide to do the right thing and then to convince others that it is the right thing.
So, according to you, I can't notice and remark on the primary objection that I see articulated here, one which you just restated using different words. Whatever.
"Got one?"
How is this a 'loaded' question? You're arguing against those who oppose this nomination. You don't even state your for the nomination, instead you're saying you want to 'wait and see.' It's fair to ask, "wait and see, what?" What is it you think will develop during the confirmation process that will convince you that those who oppose the nomination are wrong? If you can't answer the question, then it appears all of your argumentation is just blind Bushophilia masquerading as intellectual debate.
You're the one saying trust Bush! I've simply pointed out ONE reason NOT to. If someone gives me a list of all judicial appointments made by Bush I will gladly google them tonight at home & investigate. Or perhaps someone else knows if there's already a website out there that has done this?
Since you're great at investigating... ;)
That's what hearings are for.
My issues are primarily other than "predicted performace," but they do flow from the fact that her con-law philosophy is unknown, and she is a crony. The latter point not to be taken in a bad way, but she does owe some of her personal success to her attachment to the President. The crony charge will be leveled and addressed, but it's a discussion that is not the one I'd prefer.
This was a missed opportunity to have a conservative dialog with the public. The nomination shows weakness. The fact that weakness is the reality does not appease my disappointment.
I would have thought the answer to that would have been obvious: wait and see how she does in the confirmation hearings and then decide if she's a good nominee or not.
It's a hard concept, I know.
You can remark howsoever you wish. Just don't claim that my concern is different than what my concern is, and don't rephrase my concern to be something else than what it is.
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.