Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: TheCrusader
I hesitate to compare anything going on in the Senate today with what has gone on in the past. The data mining is different, access is different with the internet and the unprecedented filibusters we have seen are different.

They were unwilling to put the welfare of their own country, (and maybe even the existence of America as we know it), before their own fears of facing a difficult hearing process. Where is their patriotism and personal conviction, and where was their gratitude and sense of duty??

Go ask Estrada about his personal convictions and gratitude. What in the world, with the stakes even higher, makes you believe these political realities don't exist?

Bush could have, and should have done better for those conservatives who supported him and helped get him elected.

I can name you dozen of Bush supporters with whom I volunteered on his campaign and none of us feel he's letting us down. The Senate and the RNC are different stories. Blaming the President and the cowardliness of would be nominees completely misses the point and more importantly, it doesn't address the problem. In fact it only provides cover for the problem and assures that it will continue.

760 posted on 10/12/2005 9:41:33 PM PDT by Dolphy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 757 | View Replies ]


To: Dolphy
"Blaming the President and the cowardliness of would be nominees completely misses the point and more importantly, it doesn't address the problem. In fact it only provides cover for the problem and assures that it will continue."

Depends on which problem you are referring to; the onerous, humiliating and disgraceful confirmation process that the SC nominees are subjected to, or the problem of the President nominating an unknown entity devoid of any judicial record with which to identify or deduce her positions on the most important, (and most divisive), issues of our times.

During the campaign President Bush stated that he would appoint SC Justices "in the mold of Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia", which he did with Judge Roberts. But in no way can anybody compare Harriet Miers to either Scalia or Thomas because she was never a judge and there is not much else to compare. There is, however, a record hinting that Miers was a feminist and had some liberal leanings. Personally, I wonder what was going through her mind during the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings, when the feminists tried to torpedo his nomination with wild accusations of "sexist" escapades. We'll never know.

Unfortunately, when the President appointed Roberts to replace Rhenquist, conservatives probably didn't gain much ground and may have even lost some. (Rhenquist was viewed as a staunch conservative while many people view Roberts as a 'moderate conservative'). Since Roberts stated that he won't be bringing his (Catholic) faith to work with him, that his beliefs will "play no role" in his decisions, I too wonder about how conservative he is. Meanwhile, the bothersome question remains, "Who is Harriet Miers, and will she be a steadfast conservative or just another moderate like Sandra Day O'Connor"? If Miers proves to be a moderate then SCOTUS may look more liberal than it did before Rhenquist died and O'Connor retired, and we will have gained nothing.

So far, apart from rumors and gossip, the only reassurance we have is, "don't worry, she's a Christian and you'll like her". I just think conservatives deserve a little more assurance than that.

761 posted on 10/12/2005 10:57:35 PM PDT by TheCrusader ("The frenzy of the Mohammedans has devastated the churches of God" -Pope Urban II, 1097AD)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 760 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson