Posted on 10/13/2005 5:47:35 PM PDT by baystaterebel
White House officials have a message for conservative Republican senators who have expressed doubt about supporting Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers.
The West Wing types argue that she will turn out to be just as conservative as President Bush says she is, and voting against her would be an embarrassment over the long term. This message is intended for holdouts including Sam Brownback of Kansas, Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, and Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania.
"If Miers is confirmed and she winds up being what the president says she is, Republican senators who voted against her will look quite foolish," says a GOP insider. This could cause a backlash against these legislators from conservative Bush supporters at the grass roots.
(Excerpt) Read more at usnews.com ...
"President Bush cannot demean or bully the people who voted for him without massive repercussions."
Yes, you are right! I for one will NOT vote for him in 2008! :-)
Cite for this quote?
WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) today made the following statement on President Bush’s selection of Harriet Miers to serve as a justice on the Supreme Court of the United States. Graham is a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
“President Bush has made a solid pick for the Supreme Court.
“Harriet Miers has been in the legal trenches throughout her career and has a tremendous understanding of how the law works in people’s everyday lives. Her legal experience combined with her life experience makes her a solid choice.
“I hope for and anticipate a smooth confirmation process with a significant bipartisan vote in support. In my opinion, there will be no filibuster as she is a mainstream conservative who will be a strict constructionist on the Supreme Court.
“I expect the liberal left to make demands upon the Administration to produce information protected by attorney-client privilege. Efforts such as these to derail a qualified nominee like Miers should fail.”
I didn't write that quote you are responding to.
It was a hypothetical.
We have a nomination where a candidate is too much of an unknow wrt judicial philosophy, although the President claims to know and trust that judicial philosophy based on years of personal interaction.
Based on that unknowns, people are painting hypothetical outcomes, good, bad, otherwise. I think some of the conservatives need to either (a) calm down or (b) understand a little logic.
Dont just assume the best, dont assume the worst, and dont simply jump to a conclusion and declare it the only possible truth. If we "dont know" then we just dont know.
Some people seem to be going from
"We dont know her judicial philosophy" ... therefore "she's a bad nomination" ... to "since she's a bad nomination, she'll *surely* be a bad justice". The latter is not necessarily true.
She may work out badly. She may work out fine. We just don't know.
"I happen to be in the "hold your nose and very reluctantly support her because the president has made a big bloody mistake and I don't want it to turn into a huge, smashing defeat" crowd.
----
I nominate this for "quote of the day". LOL.
may I ask your party 'position'?
Thanks for sticking up for Santorum. You are talking common sense.
thanks!
I'm a county official in a big, swing county in a purple state. Other than that, I like to stay anonymous so I don't have to be so circumspect.
Seeing the list of charges laid against you as a traitor, Sir, I believe that I'll swing along side of you as a proud traitor as well.
Seeing the list of charges laid against you as a traitor, Sir, I believe that I'll swing along side of you as a proud traitor as well.
This whole process is designed to avoid a principled discussion. Our leaders are playing judicial roulette.
The only good outcome would be if Miers gets confirmed and manages to vote just like Thomas.
That adds to the likelihood that we'll get more stealth nominees, but it probably IS best for the GOP, I agree. It's not the best way to defeat the filibusters standing in the way of their goal to have known conservatives nominated.
Lindsey Graham anticipating a smooth process while mentioning that Miers wouldn't draw a filibuster is like patting himself on the back for thinking more stealth candidates would be just fine for the GOP.
The furor over her nomination proves him wrong.
your position is noted and under reasonably normal circumstances I would not have been so abrupt or used such strong language (I have heard much worse on FR)---however, I too am fedup with so called conservatives (whether strongly so or modestly so) continually bashing the President because their personal agenda is not being taken care of---the Santorum remarks just finished me off as for anyone to vote for a 'rat' in place of a reasonably conservative senator is "idiotic and stupid" IMHO--maybe my age has something to do with my feelings since I have been dealing with "idiots and stupids" for longer than the average person--no excuse, just a fact--seems to me that the 'summer soldiers and fair weather friends' ought to rally around our President for a period and give him some support instead of doing the 'rats' work for them--if they can't see fit to do that perhaps keeping their 'piehole' shut for a bit might be the next best thing---in any event at least I made a 'home page'--I note the majority of our Presidents critics have not made any statements of position, past or present-
I note that you are being taken to task by at least one of the 'crybabies' who has disapproved of one of my remarks--I also note that you have had the courage to make a 'home page'--since a large number of the critics that love to 'bash the Bush' lately have not, I wonder what they are hiding?
Great post--I see one of your critics likes French---thanks for your answer to the 'sad one'
I'm thinking more along the lines of the 2006 mid-term elections.
Any Republican up for election might feel the heat for their actions regarding the Mier's nomination. Which might lead to a Democratic victory.
President Bush's actions have lead to a split in the Republican party. And if history is any guide, just look at how ignoring the conservative base ensured Clintoon's election versus the earlier Bush. Many conservatives were so fed up that they voted for Perot.
Is Mier's nomination so important for President Bush that he's willing to ensure a Republican loss in the House and Senate?
The entire gang of 14, plus the Senate leadership, plus Judiciary Committee leadership have a vested interest, and will favor "stealth" over principled confrontation.
I have to count the Presideent in on that as well. He accepted the unreasonable and "contrary to constitutional design" implied 60 vote hurdle.
All true.
Who needs to lead out front on the filibuster issue? Conservatives demanding that the President nominate known conservatives or a President who retains the option of nominating stealth conservatives?
The pressure will gravitate to the weak points, naturally. You'll see ;-) There is enough time lapse for people to figure it out and adjust.
But there has to be pressure on all of them, Senators and President alike.
I'm not necessarily demanding a known radical conservative. A good solid judge who is follows the law is not a radical concept - at least it shouldn't be. But I am demanding a nominee with a tangible, useful record. Then I can decide at least on principle if the GOP, & Sentors got one "conservative enough." This stealth stuff is absolutely bullshit. So is the 60 vote hurdle - it has to go. The President's "in the mold of Thomas or Scalia" means thatthe DEMs will feel the urge to filibuster.
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.