Posted on 10/14/2005 4:17:25 PM PDT by Stellar Dendrite
So if he says he is for Miers, that should really make you think (assuming you care at all about what the talking class thinks). Even he who otherwise seems to agree with the concepts of the anti-miers people still thinks we should support the nomination.
Oh, or we could believe he was being completely honest before, but now is lying for some reason.
Hugh's focus is to sell the brand, no matter how bad the product.
I support the nomination because I support the president who made the nomination.
Unless and until the nominee has had a full and fair public hearing, and unless and until a compelling case against Miers' nomination is presented, then it seems to my way of thinking, fairness dictates that I keep an open mind and accept the president at his word regarding her judicial philosophy. Bush has known and worked day in and day out with this woman for years. That's not a small fact.
Is it the "trust me" syndrome ...
The scare quotes accompanied by the use of a word which is normally indicative of a disease, abnormal condition or psychological disorder are puzzling. Do you really think so little of those of us on the other side? It seems to imply that you believe that those who choose to place trust in Bush's judgement about Miers are somehow inherently operating from blind trust in Bush, maybe intellectual weakness, perhaps an undiscerning faith, or are incapable of fully grasping the "truth" about what's at stake. It's, frankly, presumptuous and biased against the whole concept of earned trust in a leader who has a public record of achievement.
I'm a computer consultant, not a Supreme Court Nominee consultant. No matter how bright or perceptive I fancy myself to be, no matter how much news I read, it's a simple reality that I'm not qualified to authoritatively render judgement on Miers' legal bona fides for the job of Supreme Court Justice at this time. Given that humbling fact, I'm forced to rely heavily on the opinions of those whom I trust to know more than me about these matters.
Now, I can trust the judgements and opinions of beltway know-it-all legal experts I've never heard of or conservative talk show hosts and celebrity pundits (many of whom I genuinely respect and admire, but whom are ultimately accountable only to a fan base and advertisers)--or I can trust the man who has a well known track record of quality judicial appointments, the man who earned my vote with a promise to appoint judges who strictly interpret the law, the man who put his hand on the Bible and swore an oath to protect and defend the Constitution, and is accountable to the judgement of history and the millions who voted for him.
I don't have an Etch-A-Sketch memory which gets shaken and cleared, constantly forcing Bush to prove that he's worthy of my trust in these matters. Bush has earned my trust, patience, and benefit of the doubt, not my cynicism. If facts prove otherwise, I'll change my judgement about him and his nominee accordingly. Until then I'm dancing with the one that brung me.
All the best
... and I'd agree with him.
You have to be joking.
Have you spent the past two weeks in a hermetically-sealed room?
How can anyone who's observed the two sides honestly come to the conclusion that the Miers camp has made an equally compelling case for her nomination as her detractors have made for rejecting it?
The only persuasive, empirical argument that the pro-Miers forces have been able to muster-with the seemingly unlimited resources of the White House at their disposal-is that she will be better on 2nd Amendment issues than most-if not all-current Supreme Court justices.
That's it!
They've had two weeks to come up with a convincing rationale for nominating this woman and they've only been able to summon a single valid point.
Shouldn't that tell you something?
Little word of advice: sometimes, the voices in your head may actually be lying to you.
Though, I've definitely been circumspect when dealing with the more fervent members of the self-professed Bucket Brigade, lest I incur the wrath of the modz.
:)
In your zeal to criticize you make an incorrect logical assumption and then attack an argument I didn't even make.
Saying that I've not yet seen a compelling case against the Miers nomination is not the same as arguing that the "Miers camp has made an equally compelling case" on her behalf relative to her detractors.
Kindly read and think twice before hitting the post button.
Luke 6:42
Other than alienating people who most likely agree with the vast majority of your politics, what does posting that pic add to the debate at hand?
I don't see the point in labeling anyone who has the clarity of mind to see a betrayal for what it is as "DU clones," or "sexists," or "elitists," or any of a host of other wildly inaccurate epithets that have been lobbed at individuals who oppose this nomination on principle.
Easily answered: It Makes a Point.
Some will "get" it; others... not so much.
I sleep just as soundly, either way.
I'm thrilled so many are aware of their latest bit hypocrisy. Congrats.
Perfect. I used to listen to Hugh every day.
Now I find it nearly impossible.
"At no other time is the need for lawyers to regain this sense of overriding commitment to the system greater, because at no other time have we witnessed a greater need for role models and leadership in problem solving and encouraging means for greater understanding and appreciation for diversity. A commitment to the system requires strengthened efforts to demonstrate the value of education, the need for a willingness to listen and continue debate, the vow to not personalize arguments so as to eliminate unnecessary hostilities, and the urgency of regaining the ability to maintain mutual respect for the rights of our colleagues - despite even violent differences of views."
-"What We Have Here is a Failure to Communicate," Texas Bar Journal, March 1993.
Not exactly brilliant. But even worse is its inane substance: a call for a "greater appreciation" for "diversity" and a "willingness to listen" and "maintain mutual respect." Her public utterances are the blandest of peecee cliches. Hillary Clinton could have written this!
If Bush had nominated Bill Clinton Hewitt would be talking about how thgat was the greaest nomination in history.
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.