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

Skip to comments.

MIERS & LAST-MINUTE DROP-OUTS (Priscilla Owen did not withdraw her name)
National Review Online: The Corner ^ | 10-12-2005 | Kathryn Jean Lopez

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


TOPICS: Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: harrietmiers; miers; priscillaowen; scotus
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 321-340341-360361-380381-395 next last
To: cyncooper

"Source,please."


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1501301/posts?q=1&&page=360#360







361 posted on 10/12/2005 5:15:15 PM PDT by rbmillerjr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 356 | View Replies]

To: rbmillerjr

That's not source for your assertion, it's the post right before yours.


362 posted on 10/12/2005 5:19:01 PM PDT by cyncooper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 361 | View Replies]

To: cyncooper

My assertion is that Owen denies that she withdrew her name from consideration...emphatically.

That is the very object of this thread and article.


363 posted on 10/12/2005 5:21:37 PM PDT by rbmillerjr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 362 | View Replies]

To: kabar
Of course the GOP doesn't believe in affirmative action and quotas, but we must have a woman for this position

It was Bush, constitutionlly empowered, who chose to put a woman on the court. No affirmative action law or quota forced him to do it. It was HIS CHOICE.

364 posted on 10/12/2005 5:22:33 PM PDT by ez (W. quells 2 consecutive filibusters and gets 2 religious people on the court. Bravo!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 341 | View Replies]

To: rbmillerjr

And my point is this thread is based on a friend of a friend report whereas we have an unbiased September 30 pre-Miers hysteria account that seems much more credible.


365 posted on 10/12/2005 5:23:37 PM PDT by cyncooper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 363 | View Replies]

To: rbmillerjr; cyncooper

A jouralist says that a lawyer told her that Owens told him that she did not withdraw her name. Hearsay is all the 9 percenters need to substantiate their attacks, apparently.


366 posted on 10/12/2005 5:24:28 PM PDT by ez (W. quells 2 consecutive filibusters and gets 2 religious people on the court. Bravo!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 354 | View Replies]

To: cyncooper

Umm it was on live TV. Don't you think that P. Owen would want to correct that statement if it wasn't true?

Don't be silly.


367 posted on 10/12/2005 5:26:54 PM PDT by rbmillerjr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 365 | View Replies]

To: cyncooper

Owen is out Sep 30 2005 12:42 PM

By TimChapman/Townhall

According to a very reliable source close to the White House vetting process for the next nominee, Priscilla Owen has withdrawn her name from the process.

With Owen out, conservatives have lost one of the better women on the short list.


368 posted on 10/12/2005 5:27:11 PM PDT by ez (W. quells 2 consecutive filibusters and gets 2 religious people on the court. Bravo!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 365 | View Replies]

To: rbmillerjr

What was on live tv?

I think you're confused.


369 posted on 10/12/2005 5:28:05 PM PDT by cyncooper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 367 | View Replies]

To: rbmillerjr

So Rove says numerous women withdrew their names, Townhall reported that Owen withdrew her name, and Dobson was told the same thing, but a journalist says a lawyer told her that Owens told him that she didn't. And you believe it...


370 posted on 10/12/2005 5:29:20 PM PDT by ez (W. quells 2 consecutive filibusters and gets 2 religious people on the court. Bravo!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 367 | View Replies]

To: Huck
My examples show that throughout the entire history of the Constitution, the Senate has used all the rascally tricks it could devise, and there's nothing in the Constitution to stop them. There's no court case that says they must stop. There is no Senate rule that says they must stop.

I agree with that -and I use the term "unconstitutional" without describing what it means in context. In the case of the filibuster, it is a balance of powers error -- it is against the design intention of the Constitution.

I'm not sure whether it's justiciable or not. I do know thatthe damaged party is the Office of the President.

You can show me no court ruling or any documentation to support your side of the argument.

That's true as well. I am appealing to the design intention embodied in the Constitution. The Senate has a good rule for treaties (no cloture - no way for the minority to cause a "not voting" result once the treaty gets to the floor) - and a similar arrangement is appropriate for executive nominations.

The solution requires understanding first, then the commitment to carry the message to the public, and then to the floor of the Senate.

All you so-called republicans (or are you merely Republicans) who advocate lickng the president's boots ought to be ashamed of yourselves.

/me looks around the room.

371 posted on 10/12/2005 5:32:19 PM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 359 | View Replies]

To: trubluolyguy; ex-snook
personal insults towards him

Oh, lighten up!

I think Stephen Hawking is still alive, so this is not a personal insult to Bush, it's just a fact that few people put him at No. 1 smartest man.

Bush is no dummy, but smartest man in the world? Ms Miers seems to have a taste for hyperbole.

372 posted on 10/12/2005 5:42:31 PM PDT by slowhandluke (It's hard work to be cynical enough in this age)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 278 | View Replies]

To: cyncooper

Well, since we are taking various people's words for what other people said, it's hard to be sure. And I doubt whether Priscilla Owen will publicly say that she did not withdraw her name, because that would be political suicide.

I saw the post you refer to, and it occurs to me that the unimpeachable source it refers to might well be none other than Karl Rove, who apparently was telling Gary Bauer about that time that the other candidates had withdrawn. In other words, it might be more disinformation from Rove.

This gets too cloudy to be sure about, so I think I'll put it aside as something to keep in mind, but "neither proven nor disproven" until we hear more.


373 posted on 10/12/2005 6:07:35 PM PDT by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 350 | View Replies]

To: flashbunny
They were playing the old democrat game of bullying people into shutting up by calling them names.

Who are you talking about, the people here labelling others "bushbots" and "RINOs"? I think the WH's response wasn't the best to those initial attacks. But honestly, if you read or listened to the things Ingraham and Coulter were saying from day one, they've got a lot of nerve to be complaining about namecalling.

Actually, they're the ones using the whiny Dem tactics. Start a smear campaign, then bitch and moan because the other side fires back. Classic.

374 posted on 10/12/2005 6:36:30 PM PDT by XJarhead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 260 | View Replies]

To: ez
It was Bush, constitutionlly empowered, who chose to put a woman on the court. No affirmative action law or quota forced him to do it. It was HIS CHOICE.

More like LAURA'S CHOICE. Why should he confine his selection to women only? GWB may nominate her, but it is up to the Senate to confirm her.

375 posted on 10/12/2005 6:44:57 PM PDT by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 364 | View Replies]

To: Aldin

IIRC, the only requirements to become POTUS are being a citizen born in the US, and being over 35 years old. Nonetheless, we expect Presidential candidates to be of a very high caliber (and sometimes we're lucky and they are).
I think the same reasoning applies to lifetime appointments to SCOTUS. In theory, you could appoint a sanitation worker--but why on earth would you want to?


376 posted on 10/12/2005 7:05:39 PM PDT by born in the Bronx
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: deport

UM--don't those numbers come from a WASHINGTON POST poll?


377 posted on 10/12/2005 7:08:21 PM PDT by born in the Bronx
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: XJarhead

The bushbots label themselves.

RINOs? I haven't labeled anybody here a RINO over this.

The distinction, and please try to understand this:

If you think george bush is peachy keen in everything he does, fine. That's your right. Maybe a little koolaid drinking going on, but if you want to, great.

If you think bush can do no wrong and you attack anybody who dares question him, and especially if you use the tactics of the left to shout them down, then you deserved to be called a bush bot or worse. I don't even like the use the term 'bushbot' because it's too cutesy. I prefer to be honest: It's doing exactly what the clintonites were condemned for doing: Unable to allow dissent based on the issues because the attachment to personality was so strong.

THAT is one of the key things that has decimated the democratic party. I'm not going to sit by and watch it happen to the Republican party as well.


378 posted on 10/12/2005 7:12:10 PM PDT by flashbunny (Sorry, but I'm allergic to KoolAid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 374 | View Replies]

To: Black Tooth
What are their names?

Hi, Black Tooth...just woke up so I'll have to shake my brain to remember where I heard this. On talk radio, it was not a personality (Rush, Sean, Laura, etc), but a caller and it could have been on any of the talk shows because I have them on all day.

I may be able to find the FreeRepublic post or thread by looking in my history. I will see what I can find.

Stay tuned!
379 posted on 10/12/2005 7:26:05 PM PDT by hummingbird (21st Century Newsreporting - "Don't get me started!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 251 | View Replies]

To: born in the Bronx

Pew.....


380 posted on 10/12/2005 7:26:36 PM PDT by deport (Alberto Gonzales... Next up. LOL)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 377 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 321-340341-360361-380381-395 next last

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.

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