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

Skip to comments.

Too Stealth
National Review On Cline ^ | Oct 21, 2005 | Rich Lowry

Posted on 10/21/2005 7:45:54 AM PDT by libstripper

The Miers nomination might be the most catastrophic political miscalculation of the Bush presidency.

Republican presidents have long been drawn to the “stealth strategy” on judicial nominations, picking conservatives, or supposed conservatives, without a public record so it will be harder for Democrats to oppose them. In the John Roberts nomination, a modified stealth strategy reached its height, giving the Court what is likely to be a conservative chief justice for the next 30 years. In the Harriet Miers nomination, the stealth strategy has all but collapsed, producing what might be the most catastrophic political miscalculation of the Bush presidency.

(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: lowry; miers; miersnomination; scotus
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-77 next last
To: The Iguana
I agree, and if I'm wrong on her, I will repent in sackcloth and ashes. Somehow, however, I don't think the Miers critics will ever do the same if she pans out.

I well remember the criticisms of Thomas as a "lightweight" and an "affirmative action" appointment, and how GHW Bush "passed over" many more-qualified candidates.

41 posted on 10/21/2005 9:01:12 AM PDT by LS (CNN is the Amtrak of news)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Irontank

We have some basis for our views on Roberts. First of all, he had some record as a justice. He also had writings.

And last, we KNOW he understands the constitution, and can speak about it with authority. Therefore, when he says how he will interpret the constitution, we know at least that he KNOWS what it means to do so.

We don't know that with Miers. She might say she is a strict constructionist, and think that means there is a right to proportional representation in the 14th amendment.


42 posted on 10/21/2005 9:01:58 AM PDT by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: LS
and she WILL be approved

Care to put some money where your keyboard is? I think you are wrong.

43 posted on 10/21/2005 9:03:17 AM PDT by PjhCPA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: LS

I wasn't speaking for you, except maybe where I referred to bots.


44 posted on 10/21/2005 9:04:31 AM PDT by Huck (Miers Miers Miers Miers Miers--I'm mired in Miers.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: libstripper
>>>>The Miers nomination might be the most catastrophic political miscalculation of the Bush presidency.

Wrong Rich. Spending the taxpayers money like a liberal, expanding the fedral bureaucracy and ignoring immigration reform have been Bush`s biggest failures. Unless Miers screws up royal, she'll be confirmed.

45 posted on 10/21/2005 9:05:46 AM PDT by Reagan Man (Secure our borders;punish employers who hire illegals;stop all welfare to illegals)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: libstripper
The stealth strategy always had a whiff of deception about it. In this nomination, the whiff is becoming a stink of contradiction and bad faith.

And some argue that government by deception is a good thing, as long as the other guy is the victim. I argue the opposite, in "Uncertainty," the Nominee.

I believe the DEM party is morally and ethically corrupt.

It's demoralizing to realize that GWB and the GOP are headed in the same direction, at least in the realm of Judicial nominations.

46 posted on 10/21/2005 9:07:05 AM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Huck

See its the "we get her secretary" comments that really make it hard for the anti-miers folks to gain better traction with the "wait-and-see" folks.

If her opponents would stick to the solid, well-founded issues of capability and jurisprudence, they would be more accepted. Nobody wants a judge that is incapable, or that has the wrong judicial philosophy.

If his lawyer for the last 10 years had been a male, can you imagine anybody would have called HIM "his secretary"?


47 posted on 10/21/2005 9:07:20 AM PDT by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: AmericaUnited

LOL


48 posted on 10/21/2005 9:08:03 AM PDT by Earthdweller (Proud right-winger who loves this country)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: The Iguana
Clinton brazenly said he would nominate pro-abortion, activist judges - and he did. Why is it that Republican presidents are terrified to do the same when it comes to Supreme Court nominations?

Defeatism.

49 posted on 10/21/2005 9:08:42 AM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Focused Fury

Note the poster who called her "his secretary". Honestly think: Would Alberto Gonzales be dismissed as "his secretary"? Would any male lawyer be dismissed as someone who is "his secretary", or who "is good at getting coffee"?

Opponents hurt their cause with mindless personal attacks. Stick to the real issues.


50 posted on 10/21/2005 9:10:45 AM PDT by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: PjhCPA

I already have a bet with someone here. My experience with Freepers paying up isn't good. But I'm on record. Look me up in a year.


51 posted on 10/21/2005 9:11:30 AM PDT by LS (CNN is the Amtrak of news)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Huck

Count me in, then.


52 posted on 10/21/2005 9:11:59 AM PDT by LS (CNN is the Amtrak of news)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: The Iguana
"Clinton brazenly said he would nominate pro-abortion, activist judges - and he did. Why is it that Republican presidents are terrified to do the same when it comes to Supreme Court nominations"

Just a thought, but is it possible that the blue bloods that run the party don't really want a conservative SCOTUS?
PUBS have been putting a lot of judges on the SC. Is it possible they just want conservatives to be loyal lap dogs of the party the same way the unions are for the RATS. Its a pretty bad thought, but what have the PUBS done for us domestically? We waited and compromised expecting that the SCOTUS was going to be the big payoff for our loyalty.
53 posted on 10/21/2005 9:12:14 AM PDT by wmfights (lead, follow, or get out of the way)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT
Two points:

1. She was Bush's secretary. It's on her Senate questionnaire. It says:

January 2001-June 2003: Staff Secretary, The White House, Washington, D.C. 20502.

2. I'm not trying to gain any traction with anyone. If the anti-Miers folks wanted any more traction, they'd need chains and studs on their tires. We've got plenty of traction, thanks.

54 posted on 10/21/2005 9:18:43 AM PDT by Huck (Miers Miers Miers Miers Miers--I'm mired in Miers.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Earthdweller

Dennis Prager, who had been a big Harriet backer, is indicating that it may be time for Bush to admit that he blew it and withdraw the nomination. He is also suggesting that W may be a bit out of touch.

Dubya is simply putting the best face on a BAD situation.


55 posted on 10/21/2005 9:21:40 AM PDT by Don'tMessWithTexas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: alcuin

Good thing Bush doesn't suck at chess.


56 posted on 10/21/2005 9:23:43 AM PDT by Terpfen (Bush is playing chess. Remember that, and stop playing checkers.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT
If his lawyer for the last 10 years had been a male, can you imagine anybody would have called HIM "his secretary"?

If he'd held that position, yes. Actually, I think if she were a he, the gloves would really be off. I think folks are going easy on her because they feel sorry for her. She is being pitied, not pilloried.

57 posted on 10/21/2005 9:23:49 AM PDT by Huck (Miers Miers Miers Miers Miers--I'm mired in Miers.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT

See, people who use the argument that we shouldn't "capitulate to the fringe wing of a party throwing a hissy fit" are people who do not identify with the party's core beliefs. So they term people who hold to views mainstream enough in the party to BE THE VIEWS EXPRESSED BY THE PARTY PLATFORM to be "fringe" people. At that point the person loses credibilty with me. They're obviously working for the other side.


58 posted on 10/21/2005 9:25:35 AM PDT by The Ghost of FReepers Past (Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a disgrace to any people. Ps. 14:34)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Don'tMessWithTexas

Ya just wish President Bush and the team would've fought as hard for Miguel Estrada as they have now for Meirs!!! SIGH...

and there is no stench of cronyism?


59 posted on 10/21/2005 9:32:17 AM PDT by Toidylop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Don'tMessWithTexas
"Dubya is simply putting the best face on a BAD situation."

Yep, history has shown that he never means what he says... /sarc

60 posted on 10/21/2005 9:33:35 AM PDT by Earthdweller (Proud right-winger who loves this country)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-77 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