Posted on 10/13/2005 10:41:48 PM PDT by goldstategop
As for trust, GWB broke his subjective campaign promise to me. He said "in the mold of Scalia or Thomas"
Our President says that he knows her heart, to me that means that she IS in the mold.
I believe a claim of that by Priscilla Owen is contained upthread. But at this point, do you expect any potential future nominee to open his mouth and say, "Wait a minute, he's a liar!" about the guy they are hoping might nominate them next time around?
Our President says that he knows her heart, to me that means that she IS in the mold.
I hear what you are saying, but think it is important for you to understand why I feel otherwise.
First, as a matter of my personal trust or sense that the President did what he said he would, I took his word to mean that:
We don't have that in this nominee.
The other point is one that seems to be lost on many FReepers, who think that objecting to this nomination just has to be an objection to Ms. Miers, the person - who probably has a decent heart. You could NOT be more wrong. There is a priniple of open, honest government here, and the entire country is being cheated out of a transparent political process that includes fighting over ideals.
To be blunt, I think President Bush has abused your trust in him. The link below poinst to some "sort of geeky" posts (not inflammatory in any way) that desicribe how the founders intended the President and Senate to process nominations. If you were an objective Senator, and the president said "I have a bill here that I want you to pass. 'Trust me,' it's a good bill. It's about saving social security. Please pass it." You would expect the contents of the bill to be laid out for review, so the bill could be debated on the merits. Do you think a responsible Senator would vote 'Aye" based on "trust me?" I think not, because that is a crap shoot. He (the Senator) might get it right, or he might not.
Stealth in itself is inherently dishonest. You should be ashamed if you are pushing a dishonest tactic. GOvernment serves all of us, DEM and GOP and everyone else. Do you advocate a government process that is not open and transparent, because you think the outcome will be to your advantage? It is this "process of steath" itself that I reject; and that is non-negotiable with me.
Now, here is the link I noted. It hits on post #6, but you should read #7, #12, and #13. Senator Santorum has also voiced objection on the grounds of "stealth."
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1502188/posts?page=6#6
There is another view of the basic point I am arguing, and it has to do with the dialoge between you and me, between the "trust me" and the "show me" camps. It illustrates the very nature of our argument. I wrote this yesterday, and will cut and past it complete with typos.
Time will tell. As for my opinion, and you ake this personally please, there is no reasoning with blind trust. I have given up trying to convince you of anything - but aim to conclude our relationship on a civil note.To say that tehre is no reasoning with blind trust is not an attack. Blind trust, or "faith" as it is sometimes called, is just not amenable to reason. That is the nature of faith. I have faith that Jesus Christ is my Lord and Savior. That he suffered and was killed to attone for my failure to live up to God's Commandments. That all I need it faith in him and his promise, and I will have the undeserved gift of everlasting life, given by the grace of God, who is all knowing, all powerful, and all loving.
No amount of reasoning with me will cause me to lose my faith in Jesus Christ. And no amount of reasoning with you will cause you to lose your faith in George Bush.
I am not saying that you see George Bush as a god. Don't go there. I am saying that it is literally impossible to mount a reasoned argument against "trust." And you have erected that barrier to reasoned discussion.
I still note, that the "I SUPPORT HARRIET BUT I HAVE NO REASONS AS TO WHY" mantra continues. It's rather intellectually dishonest, but hey, this is a nomination based on "trust" not merit, experience or qualification - I'm getting that now.
No, I don't, which is why I was surprised that anyone would have refuted Dobson's claim that Rove said the "good" female nominees had taken themselves out of the running and the best they could do was Harriet Miers.
"Rush said Wednesday 'I am opposed to this nomination.'"
Sorry 'bout that--excuse me for including Rush in MY post, then.
Brownback and Sowell, however, seem to be on the fence--especially since both sides on this thread include Sowell in their camp.
It would be a good idea if both sides would realize that, while having allies is a good thing, utilizing logical argument to convince your opponent of the righteousness of your cause (instead of trading illogical comments like insults and ally lists) is better.
You're right.
Beyond that, the other defense of her nomination I've read is that she might be a Texas cowgirl, and if she is this is a plus because we have enough know-it-alls on the Court already. OK, you can sort of see the point in this argument.
But really, is this what a SCOTUS nominee is supposed to look like? Not a bad lawyer and not too smart or too qualified?
Why don't we stop sending over in-shape Marines and soldiers to fight and instead send over fat slobs in poor health. I'm sick of all these well-trained, prepared soldiers fighting for America.
The logic of "unqualified, inexperienced and maybe not smart enough makes a great nominee" absolutely confounds me.
Sorry, I don't think that explains why most of the conservative legal scholars of today have opposed Miers. One could well argue that the lack of class exists in the President's affront to conservatives through his nomination of Miers.
Yes, but that is what is sorely lacking from the "We Love Harriet" camp. The best attempt I've seen is at Beldar's Blog where he analyzed her case record as a lawyer. About the best you could conclude was that she might not be an awful lawyer.
---I'm not real impressed with Beldar's stuff, frankly, though it's obvious he was trying hard. The best arguments I've seen about Miers aren't dedicated to refuting the arguments about her competency (those are really just silly, she is not the constitutional scholar or legal mind that we deserved) but are dedicated to pointing out why she is the best we could get right now. There's a MOOSEMUSS thread out there that was pretty good. And Thomas Sowell's article is right on that, too.
Beyond that, the other defense of her nomination I've read is that she might be a Texas cowgirl, and if she is this is a plus because we have enough know-it-alls on the Court already. OK, you can sort of see the point in this argument.
---I can, but why not a California Supreme Court justice who's proven she's not one of the gang instead? Ann Richards IS a Texas cowgirl, and there'd be riots in the suburbs if Bush had appointed her. Not that suburbanites would be wrong to riot if he'd appointed that witch, either.
But really, is this what a SCOTUS nominee is supposed to look like? Not a bad lawyer and not too smart or too qualified?
---Agreed.
Why don't we stop sending over in-shape Marines and soldiers to fight and instead send over fat slobs in poor health. I'm sick of all these well-trained, prepared soldiers fighting for America.
---LOL.
The logic of "unqualified, inexperienced and maybe not smart enough makes a great nominee" absolutely confounds me.
---It comes down to trust and 'we couldn't do any better right now.' When those are your two principal arguments, you're going to have a hard time convincing the right wing. The left wing falls for that shit all the time ("Solar power will work, trust me!" "I invented the internet, trust me!" "I was a war hero, trust me!") and yet never gets 'trust me' judges for some reason. Maybe because they know THEIR base would revolt and permanently fracture if a 'trust me' nominee was put up.
I think the social-conservative-libertarian-broken-glass-party-hack GOP coalition can be put back together, but I think 2006 will be an interesting year (in the Chinese curse sense).
No amount of reasoning with me will cause me to lose my faith in Jesus Christ. And no amount of reasoning with you will cause you to lose your faith in George Bush.
You are very good at debating, I must say. You see, my faith in Jesus Christ is exactly why I put my trust in George Bush on this matter, I know who is really in control of the outcome and I rest in that.
Thank you very much. I aim to be fair in debating too.
And I think you obtained the point I was making with my declaration of faith - that once declared, reasonable discussion is shut off, and the hymns begin.
God bless you! And I agree, things always work in ways that are under His watchful eye.
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.