Posted on 10/27/2005 5:54:48 AM PDT by SoFloFreeper
just breaking!!!!!!!!
Yes, of course they will fail.
And, yes, I'm sure the Bush team knows this.
So, the only important question is, what do you think this means we should do?
I think if Bush sends up Luttig, and then McConnell, and then Alito, and then Jones, and then Estrada, and then Brown, that at the end of the cavalcade of unreasonable rejections there will be 70 Republicans in the Senate and that Bush could get his dog confirmed.
What do you think?
I would rather not be a buchanan or rockefeller republican, both are proven losers.
I bow to no one in my contempt for Ruth Bader Ginsburg's political philosophy. However, she was nominated by the lawfully-elected president (Clinton, in 1993), and, based on historical precedent, she was well-qualified. That is, she is quite intelligent, had no disqualifying moral vices, and was well-versed in the law. The fact that she was a flaming ACLU left-wing ideocrat should have had no bearing on the approval process. And, guess what? It didn't. She received 96 votes in The Senate.
A true believer in The Constitution welcomes the right of a sitting president to appoint highly-qualified judges, regardless of their political persuasion. Liberal presidents should be free to appoint liberals, and conservative presidents should be free to appoint conservatives. The only caveat is that they should be highly qualified.
If we fail to do that, then we have made Chuck Schumer the arbiter of the Constitution. If 40 senators on either side can effectively stymie a qualified nominee, we will be left with a legacy of mediocrity, stealth candidates, and Souter-esque surprises. For crying out loud--there are nine (count 'em, only nine) Supreme Court justices and they serve for a lifetime. In most cases, that's about 30 years. It's high time we settle this usurpation of the Constitution by a small gaggle of liberals, and return the prerogative of judicial nomination to the President, where it belongs. The Senate should be forced back to its pre-Schumer position of advice and consent, making sure that nominees are qualified, irrespective of their politics.
I was hoping you'd show up on this thread somewhere. Good call once again. Just wanted to give credit where credit was due.
The Maryland race is going to be brutal.
There is absolutely NO evidence Harriet Miers is a conservative. Changing parties does not mean she changed beliefs.
So Gw is a loser?
Personally, I think I look good in orange hair and big floppy shoes. Not to mention the suspenders! I happened to be an early dis-approver of the Miers nomination. For the simple reason that there are no less than a dozen well qualified individuals that have actually been in the supreme court, or are well schooled and written with regards to constitutional law. Politics is a blood sport. The entire executive branch, and "conservative" Republicans now get a chance at a do-over from the staunchly conservative base.
I see the "party" types that called us extreme fringe right wing malcontents are furious. Good. the Republican base is comprised of Independent CONSERVATIVES. NOT "yes" people. If they had no problem with the nom, fine, but they were the minority. A minority growing smaller every day as those against this nom gew in number and strength.
Boxer is on calling us far right. LOL I'm glad those people have so much in common with her.
W's next choice will start out in a huge hole. Get raedy to become all too familiar with the phrase, "another Harriet Miers".
I'd actually go for Eugene Volokh (a clerk for Kozinski) as well.
http://volokh.com/
But you were wrong.
Wrong, I tell you, wrong.
The ubers will simply move on to some other issue, where they'll plant their flag and threaten to not vote in 2006.
It's what they do.
:)
Well of course I am. This is Free Republic, after all, not DU. :-)
If you are truly bothered by being called a name (although I agree that "Bushbot" is childish), that may explain why you are under the impression that you aren't allowed to speak on here. Hypersensitivity is never a good thing. I'd think someone who's been here as long as you would be used to that.
My opinion -- which you so graciously entitled me too -- is that you're POd that you were on the wrong end of the deal on this one, and are, in fact, pouting about it at the moment, and the RINO and Bushbot name-calling are a ready-made excuse for that behavior. But at least you can look around and see that you're not alone. There are many on this thread who would make you think recess was cancelled at kindergarten this morning, the way they're acting.
Name one conservative who argued against giving her an up or down vote. What was suggested, and apparently followed, was that Miers spare herself the confirmation hearings. Not because she wasn't ENTITLED to an up-or-down vote, but because it was suspected that such a vote wasn't in HER interest.
Unfortunately, it was the right "political" decision to make, and yes, I respect her, and the President for having the courahe to make it. May God continue to bless Harriet Miers and President Bush.
By the way, I sure hope all the sniping at the President now stops here at FR.
Yes you have, and I'm not surpised or bothered by it, given your narcissistic hubristic nature, ala hillary.
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.