Posted on 10/11/2005 10:03:46 AM PDT by quidnunc
* bump *
Someone who lacks the experience, ability, qualifications and experience in the trenches of constitutional debate/anaylsis shouldn't be nominated in the first place.
I don't care if she comes out singing with beauty and clarity at the hearings - put her on American Idol if she and President Bush believe that this is where a SCOTUS nominee demonstrates their competence.
Their life's track record in constitutional law and understanding of it (and what is NOT a part of that pursuit) is what demonstrates competence for the Court.
FReepers who drink the Kool Aid on this nominee - who was picked because the President admired her from his own observations, not because of any great pedigree relating to constitutional law - do the cause a great disservice. They put advancing Bush's political interests ahead of the long term good of an ideology that unites us based on IDEAS - not on rah rah cheerleading when our leader takes us down the wrong path.
In other words, you care more about the future decisions of the SC than Bush does. Sorry, but I think that's a big fat load of steaming BS. Bush is playing to win, and win in terms of future SC decisions, not in terms of tickling the fancy of people here.
"Trust me" only works when you've earned trust. Bush is a good, decent human being. He is terrible at fiscal conservatism, he is terrible at controlling our borders and he does not have a very good track record of holding up to pressure when it comes to judicial fights.
RINO is to a small number of FReepers
as
RACIST is to liberals...
A name to call someone when you are out of intelligent ideas.
RINO = a political donkey with a horn rubber banded to his nose(a dequise) that likes to hang with elephants..
by the way, nice screed earlier in the thread.. I agree..
Just curious, is he playing to win with the Julie Myers nomination as well? This is the second one in a row of picking someone inexperienced. Do you realize how high the stakes are for the nation and why people who voted for him might be opposed to these choices?
It was totally ridiculous. And trying to enshrine her nomination as the standard adds insult to injury. For the record, I don't think the GOP are weak; I think they are liars. I don't think they want what we want but are afraid to go for it. I don't think they care. I think they want what THEY want, and tell us what they think we want to hear, and see how bad they can screw us and get away with it.
I believe otherwise. ANd if the Senate can't get to the up or down vote on a nomination, well O'Connor can wait until the Senate gets off the dime and votes. And if the Senate doesn't vote by the time of recess, the President can reasonably recess appoint the nominee. It's a balance of powers thing. The gang of 14 deal has siphoned power off the Office of the President, and if he doesn't push back, he is capitulating.
That is not defense of the Constitution. It is a stealthy subversion of it.
Then we have the minor details of demoralizing conservatives, loss of trust in the President, and potential GOP losses in 2006 & beyond.
Why are you so afraid of having one Supreme Court justice turned down. If Harriet Miers is what we want, the way to have 100% guarentee that she would pass, is to nominate a Janice Rogers Brown first, have the Senate reject her, then come back with Harriet Miers. It is not like a Supreme Court nominee has never failed. I really don't understand the fear. Fight for what you want, fight real hard, and if you fail, then compromise. This is defeatism at its worse, not brilliant strategy by Bush.
Hey, Artemis
The topic is J U D G E S! L I F E T I M E A P P O I N T M E N T S!
And you want me to trust who? Bush? You gotta be kidding.
This is my deal. When Bush is loyal to me, I will be loyal to him.
Is there any legitimate criticism of President Bush, or is he infallible?
Think about what you just said. Thats how far he has fallen this year.
Bush wants a stealth nominee whose political philosophy can only be guessed at?...We he can have my stealth political support where he can guess whether I'm still supporting his faction or someone else.
>>>Don't forget open borders, that issue is killing us.<<<
IMO, that is his second worst betrayal, ranking second only to the Meirs nomination. Third is his "Islam is a religion of peace" declaration. His list of betrayals and poor judgements is long, indeed.
It's really quite simple.
Conservatives put Bush in power.
Bush has not selected a conservative jurist. There was supposed to be a battle of the judiciar in which we exposed the Left's complete contempt for the Constitution, and the Constitutional process and exposed 3 generations of failed liberal policies dictated from on high through the USSC.
Bush chose cowardice. Is Meirs a conservative, originalist jurist? WHO THE HELL KNOWS!?
But we should have known along with the rest of the world, that's for damned sure...so we're mad...we're seeing red...and we're breaking out the long knives.
>>>Is there any legitimate criticism of President Bush, or is he infallible?<<<
We could claim he is racist for choosing a lily-white woman over Janice Rodgers Brown. That makes as much sense as his boot-lickers labeling us elitist, sexist, and mentally-challenged.
Bring it on!
How do you expect to get rid of liberal Republicans??
Explain how they're lying during their elections against Democrats?????
I am one of W's critics on this issue, just as I am his critic on immigration. There are undoubtedly those who criticize who believe everything that breaks is his fault. To label every one of his critics as such ends intelligent conversation, which I'm sure wasn't your intention.
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.