Posted on 10/12/2005 12:26:51 PM PDT by Stellar Dendrite
MIERS & LAST-MINUTE DROP-OUTS [Kathryn Jean Lopez] A journalist friend just spoke with a top Texas lawyer who spoke with Priscilla Owen last week. He says that she "most emphatically" did not withdraw her name from consideration to the Court. If the White House spin is that Harriet Miers got the job because nobody else wanted it, it would seem that the White House is at a desperation point. Posted at 12:07 PM
Of course the GOP doesn't believe in affirmative action and quotas, but we must have a woman for this position. Males need not apply or be considered.
Here is the link to yesterdays FReeper article stating that it was Rove himself who told Dobson that most of the potential nominees had withdrawn their names.
Then a poster on this board (see posts 1 thru 13) stated that he/she knew that Owen was one of them. I put post 13 on their because I smelled rotten fish.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1500910/
I think people are looking much too carefully into Dobson's poor choice of words. Nobody at the WH lied to Dobson. People just inferred too much or misunderstood Dobson's language, that's all.
I certainly hope so. This is an awful embarrassment! Withdraw, Ms. Miers!
"I want someone who has fought the hard battles for years. Someone who has put their principles out for the world to see - not someone who has made keeping those positions hidden one of their highest priorities in life."
Amen!
Agreed. Withdrawl.
Do what is right for the Party.
Miers is not an originalist judge nominee. Why have a 55/44 majority in the senate if not to offer up nominees that have a background in constitutional law? "Trust me" on a blank check? "Trust me" because "I know her heart"?
Even to the layman, Ms. Miers is unqualified for SCOTUS.
If this is true, and it would certainly seem to be, then it means that Bush and Rove flat-out lied, first to Gary Bauer and company, and then to their base.
This really is getting to be beyond enough. If this is true, then either Bush pulls this loser of a nomination or he loses my support, permanently. There's simply no excuse for this kind of nonsense.
It does not seem to be as this report would have it. Post #155 has a September 30 article about Owen withdrawing her name---before Miers was nominated on October 3.
What I said is that a friend of a friend of a friend is not evidence either. But this whole thing is laughable really. Mier's detractors are concocting extra-constitional requirements as proof that she won't do the same on the bench, conservatives are demanding to know votes in advance, and people like Kristol and Buchanan who have steered their philosophical boats to multiple political defeats are the center of attention. Like I said...laughable.
We agree. Withdraw. Do what is right for our country, SCOTUS, POTUS and our Party.
Get a hearing aid. You are tone deaf. No one cares what you think.
Owen empathically denies that she withdrew her name.
You do. You post to me.
Why do I need a hearing aid on a workstation?
You can't even get your analogies straight.
Source, please. (And don't make it the friend of a friend one)
I wasn't saying anyone at the WH was lying. My point was that men were excluded from consideration.
Dobson: "He [Rove] also made it clear that the President was looking for a certain kind of candidate, namely a woman to replace Justice O'Connor. And you can imagine what that did to the short list."
I dunno. Seems to me that no SCOTUS candidate would whine like that, especially if they wanted it. It would be a sure way never to be considered again, in my book.
I'm coming down against the nomination. Unless she withdraws, which with the information we have now seems unlikely, she'll get confirmed.
Democrats will want to use that as a campaign issue - turning their previous obstruction strategy on it's ear.
The line will be: "We confirmed her because the president wanted her, even though we don't believe she is qualified. Obviously only DEMOCRATS can give you qualified justices....vote for us".
That is where I think they'll take this in 2006 and to a greater extent in 2008........And it's a great issue for them - there is the issue itself and the ability to prolong the divide between the Conservatives and the Pragmatics in the Republican party.
Lesson learned: If you don't elect a conservative, don't expect him to act like one later.
Lord knows there are plenty of complaints from the executive, and if you ask me, that's as it should be. You can show me no court ruling or any documentation to support your side of the argument. And in the face of 200 years of the Senate exerting itself on the process to the full extent allowed, by all the strange means they employ, you simply protest. Of course you do, your "team", the guy you root for, is the president. Like many presidents before him--even George Washington--he is harassed by 100 Senators who refuse to bow to him. And again, that's as it should be. All you so-called republicans (or are you merely Republicans) who advocate lickng the president's boots ought to be ashamed of yourselves. George W. Bush, a medicrity, presumes more than did George Washington, an absolute human collossus.
And I say all that even though I don't want Schumer and Leahy to prevail. But, just like a team that gets whooped on the field, I have to hand it to them. They do a great job of playing defense. Actually, I think our system makes it easier to play defense than it is to play offense. It's easier to defeat stuff. Again, as it should be. I would like to see our side fight and win some good appointments. But then, to tell you the truth, even the great ones let you down. And we survive the bad ones.
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.