Posted on 10/13/2005 7:25:49 AM PDT by gopwinsin04
On the heels of Federalist Society staffers appearing in the New York Times and Washington Times on Wednesday, a Federalist Society member tells ABC News the following: (this Thursday morning)
'The Federalist Society staffers are ready to lauch a coup. They have started whispering awful things about Harriet Miers.' The staffers are now just reaching the point of wanting to talk on background.' (to the mainstream media about the nominee)
'The whispers started on Monday, but have revved up...They are willing to talk.'
Federalist Society staffers don't get to vote on the nomination of course, but if the whispers get louder from key Administration allies on judical nominations, perhaps some Senators may listen.
That could be ominous.
(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...
Well put -- he's not the Pope, who is or at least used to be infallible. I think he made a mistake here, and so do a bunch of others, primarily because there are so many others he could have named who are obviously qualified conservative jurists. There are three of them that are female on the Fifth Circuit alone. At this point, though, all you can do is hold your breath and hope for the best during the confirmation hearings. The die has been cast.
Leonard Leo of the Federalist Society has already given his endorsement of Ms. Miers.
"We all know what happens to people who attempt to "kill the King" and fail. Sounds like the Federalist Society is crossing the Rubicon. For their own good, they'd better know what they're doing."
They don't.
"What ever happened to the Reagan 11th commandment :
Never speak evil of another Republican !"
Reagan was not infallible either. The '11th commandment' was stupid.
I read them and see no difficulty. BTW, for others, they are not "law documents". They are like the "leader's column" in a monthly newsletter, and are written that way.
If you read them to find out her legal thinking or how she writes legally, you will be dissappointed.
But the correct way to see this is much better than Brooks would have you believe. I presume she can write effective legal briefs, because she is a partner in a law firm, and has written briefs that have won big cases. You don't get promoted to the top in your field if you are incompetent.
What I would worry about would be if these non-legal writings sounded like legalese. Instead, she shows the remarkable ability to tailor her delivery to her intendend audience and for an intended purpose. If you are writing an end-of-year message to thank people for their service, and to call people to rededicate their efforts for the coming year, you don't want to write in dry legal style, and she doesn't.
She may be to ebullent for some. I get that same feel for the complaints about her notes to then-Governor Bush, like people are upset that she is so "bubbly". I think it is charming and a nice trait, so it doesn't bother me; but moreso I can't figure out why having the ability for a cheery disposition would disqualify you from the bench.
I will note that John Fund (or was it David Frum?) said that they would be happy if she had been nominated to an appeals court position.
But if the innuendo is to be believed, she shouldn't be allowed near a courtroom, on EITHER side of the bench.
And I am finding it hard to believe that a person that bad could have the career she has had, much less get so many smart people on board for her nomination.
It's just that the "we don't know enough about her" isn't getting her rejected, it's just making people focus on the hearings. Her opponents fear the hearings, and want to derail her nomination before the hearings, a move I simply cannot understand.
If she can't write a sentence, she will collapse at the hearings, and we don't have to destroy our party to achieve the goal. If she is as BAD as her opponents say, it will be clear when she tries to answer questions. And nobody will fault the conservatives if Miers can't appropriately discuss constitutional issues. It will embarass her and the president, but won't call into question the treatment of the next nominee.
But this trashy leaking of scurillous rumors is exactly what the DNC and MoveOn do. It looks bad, and frankly I am positive that there are SOME people pushing this smear campaign that are doing so because she is a woman. Not many, but it is possible. Which is what Lauer asked, and what Laura "acknowledged" while trying to make a perfectly VALID point.
Anybody who listens to that transcript will realise that her answer was an acknowledgment to stop the host so she could finish her statement.
Remember when Michelle Malkin was trying to talk about her book on Slimeball with Chris Matthews? And he tried to get her to talk about the Swift Boat Veterans? And she tried to give her opinion and move back to her book? But he kept pressing her, and eventually got her to "agree" to a point he made that was completely absurd?
Well, sexism is real, it is not some absurd point, and anybody who would answer "NO" to the question of whether some of the opposition to miers is sexist would be lying.
Oh, you mean this message "wah, wah, wah... She isn't ....(fillin the blank)"?
That is the essence of the criticism around here.
That is not what happened no matter if Rush was lying about it yesterday. You must believe Lauer's questions are vetted by the White House to believe that crock of crap.
Unnamed sources aren't exactly profiles in courage.
They are betting that there will be no more vacancies in the next 2 and 1/2 years, yes.
Since when are those who believe in following the Constitution "kneepad"? Maybe you should point out to all the interested parties where in the document the selection of federal judges is subject to democratic opinions. My version says that the President nominates and the Senate advises and consents. At the Founding this process was TOTALLY isolated from public opinion since the Senate was not elected by the voters.
Fortunately our Founders understood the Lynch Mob mentality and made sure that it would not impact these decisions. Get over it.
Thank you for you biting and insightful rewording of a previous post. It could be said that the percentage of FReepers that want the status quo on Miers has never been below 70%.
This section expresses an opinion I regularly try to express in my writing, and she does so in a way that is clear, unequivocal, and compelling.
Not at all like what you would expect after reading David Brook's comments about her writing style.
Judge for yourself:
Substantial pressure exists not to eliminate or change spending patterns. The information and data which comes from effective evaluation and calls for reducing or deleting some expenses or changing spending patterns must be in hand as a new budget is being developed. Having the needed information and data requires focus on the evaluation process year 'round. This is a tall order when focus is generally on the crisis of the moment, special projects of interest to leadership, and the challenges of day-to-day operations.
On the other hand, additions to the budget are usually easier. The attractiveness of trying new things, the desire to respond to every need, the effort to please every constituent, the tendency to try to solve every problem, a lack of sound information or evaluation, and taking the course of least resistance are major contributors to needlessly burgeoning budgets.
So this will be a report from the "lauch coup" children?
That is the essence of the criticism around here.
As opposed to the essence of the support for Miers..."trust me".....
As I said, is the General still dead? How can we be "already unsure"? We start out unsure, because we don't have any information. At appropriate times, we receive information. That information doesn't make us more unsure, it makes us more sure, either of support or rejection.
So we are not "already unsure", as if over the last two weeks we have been losing information about her -- to listen to some people, in a month nobody will know ANYTHING about her anymore.
One thing is true, though: Over the past two weeks the things some anti-miers people KNEW about her have been proven false, so in that case those people know less now than before.
David Brooks at least tried to use information to make a point. He seems to have missed badly, but at least he tried.
I think Drudge just posted the first shot from the Federalist Society.
Don't LIE about what the "White House" said. Stick to the truth.
LoL.
I always love watching a campaign based completely on ignorance.
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.