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

Skip to comments.

CNN: HARRIET MIERS HAS WITHDRAWN!

Posted on 10/27/2005 5:54:48 AM PDT by SoFloFreeper

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,561-1,5801,581-1,6001,601-1,620 ... 3,421-3,436 next last
To: RushCrush
Law Clerk to Judge Henry Friendly, U.S. Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit. – Law Clerk to Justice William Rehnquist, U.S. Supreme Court. – Associate Counsel to President Ronald Reagan. – Deputy Solicitor General under President George H.W. Bush.

SEXIST!!!!!!!! Janice Rogers Brown has always served under or been appointed by MEN!!! Clearly you think men are superior and women are their servants and that's why you want Brown to serve you on the Supreme Court you SEXIST!

1,581 posted on 10/27/2005 8:28:47 AM PDT by JohnnyZ ("She was appointed by a conservative. That ought to have been enough for us." -- NotBrilliant)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 555 | View Replies]

To: JohnnyZ
So Laura Ingraham is a terrorist now?

Listen to her show. She started it by thanking Miers for withdrawing, but has spent three hours trashing her.

She must have had her show planned, and can't adjust to breaking news.

She looks mean and nasty, in between all the "you knows".

1,582 posted on 10/27/2005 8:28:59 AM PDT by sinkspur (Trust, but vilify.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1538 | View Replies]

To: Arizona Carolyn
If the president supports the base who elected him they will go to the mat for him if he nomintes a candidate the left dislikes....

Do you realize that the people who gave Bush his big victory in 2004 was the Hispanic vote?

I wonder what they want?

1,583 posted on 10/27/2005 8:28:59 AM PDT by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1548 | View Replies]

To: mwl1

excellent idea to appoint Santorum.


1,584 posted on 10/27/2005 8:29:04 AM PDT by oceanview
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1492 | View Replies]

To: Wolfstar
Now only a very narrow range of people will ever be considered qualified for the court. They must have degrees from Harvard, Yale or one of the other elite law schools. They must have academic and/or work experience in one specific area of the law. Never again can a "common" man or woman be considered for the court. What I mean by that is someone who has come up through the world most of us live in.

I agree. I don't think they see what they have done, some of them will never see it.

What a tragic thing for this country.

1,585 posted on 10/27/2005 8:29:09 AM PDT by processing please hold (Islam and Christianity do not mix ----9-11 taught us that)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1483 | View Replies]

To: Miss Marple

Just speaking for myself, I never hurled any vitriol on this issue. I'm aware there are those who did, on BOTH sides of the Miers debate.

What happens now is up to the President. He made a mistake. He's human like the rest of us. He tried to avoid a fight by sending up a stealth candidate. That was a mistake, and a huge one at that.

Unless and until we force the Democrats into a very public fight over the judiciary, we'll never have a chance to reign in our imperial left-leaning court system. Just look at the Senate votes on various nominees. Clinton's two leftist nominees were easily confirmed, even when the GOP was in control of the Senate. Breyer was confirmed unanimously. Ginzburg, a radical lefty with a long paper trail, was confirmed 97-3.

While the Republicans were busy playing nice, the Democrats were busy organizing radical groups to oppose our nominees, smearing nominees, and filibustering. What's our response to this bullying from the Democrats? Is it to confront them? No, of course not. That would be "too divisive". Instead, we send up stealth nominees, EVEN WHEN WE CONTROL THE SENATE, so as not to ruffle Democrat feathers. We then cross our fingers and hope the stealth candidate, once on the court, turns out okay. But the track record on that is pretty bad. Thomas was something of a stealth candidate, I suppose, but so were Stevens, O'Connor, Kennedy, and Souter.

The Democrats have defined the term "judicial mainstream" to mean leftist judicial activism. That needs to be challenged. Until it's challenged, we're stuck trying to sneak stealth nominees past them, EVEN WHEN WE CONTROL THE SENATE.

Every time a vacancy occurs on the court, the Democrats immediately run to the nearest microphone and scream that the new nominee had better not be someone outside the "judicial mainstream". Our response should be to challenge them over what that term means. Instead, we send up a cypher and say something along the lines of this: "Our nominee is not outside the judicial mainstream. Nothing in his record indicates that he has any definitive position on abortion, gay issues, quotas, or school prayer or judicial precedent related to those issues."

The problem with that response is that it concedes that the Democrat definition of "judicial mainstream" is correct, and that a judge who might not rule the way Chuck Schumer wants is some type of extremist. The Democrats control the gate separating us from the Supreme Court, even when the GOP controls the Senate. We never challenge their control of that gate. We try to sneak around the gate, which rarely works, as the presence of Souter, Kennedy, and Co. demonstrates.

The fact that 22 Democrats voted against Roberts as a replacement for Rehnquist demonstrates the level of arrogance and vitriol the Democrats hold on this issue. Can you imagine 22 Republicans voting against a leftist Democrat nominee who was merely replacing a retiring or deceased leftist? You couldn't get more than six Republicans to vote against a flaming leftist replacing Scalia. We play nice, you know.

The ball is now in the President's court. Either he'll show a willingness to fight, or he'll send us another cypher. I hope and pray it's the former.


1,586 posted on 10/27/2005 8:29:33 AM PDT by puroresu (Conservatism is an observation; Liberalism is an ideology)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1307 | View Replies]

To: Hard Way
Good grief, it seems it's always about whether or not lib women want to kill their kids in the womb, to both sides of the political spectrum. Seems to me there are other issues to fight (and win) on. If JRB happens to be pro-life, pro-2A, so much the better, eh? I can't believe we're not hammering this property rights thing down the throat of every lib pundit and "newscaster", in this SC nominee issue. Unless of course.... half the pubs actually supported the Lelo decision.. argh.

You touch on two very important issues. First, the latter. Yes the property rights issue shoud be hammered down their throats. Why are all the good PR people Rats? We just don't deomogogue very well.

Second the abortion issue. It's still very big especially with soccer moms and their naughty daughters. Bush sidestepped the issue when he ran in 2000. He said something about changing people's hearts and avoided any pledge to change laws - this was enough to convince enough soccer moms who otherwise would have voted for Gore. Roberts did the same thing when he said Roe was settled law. The biggest fear out there is that a bunch of "crazed religious nuts" are going to pass a law outlawing abortion. And back in 2000, after the Senate caved on impeachment and the liberals made the whole issue about sex, a Republican hard-liner on abortion was never going to be elected.

I agree there are more important things out there but not to so many on both the left and the right.

1,587 posted on 10/27/2005 8:29:36 AM PDT by rhombus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1415 | View Replies]

To: Ranald S. MacKenzie

I agree. I just hate all this bickering between Conservatives. We don't need this. It's not a battle that is wise to fight. Why? When there are so many other things out there that we need to fight for against the Liberals -- we need to stay toghether and no matter what kind of SCOTUS justice she may have made, I respect her her decision to step down for the good of the movement. Just my humble opinion.


1,588 posted on 10/27/2005 8:29:40 AM PDT by bethtopaz ("You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you," Trotsky (so be prepared!))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 706 | View Replies]

To: Choose Ye This Day
"Can't we all just get along?"

I'll have a Long Island Iced tea.

1,589 posted on 10/27/2005 8:29:44 AM PDT by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1580 | View Replies]

To: babaloo
FIRST FESTIVUS POST!!

FESTIVUS FOR THE REST OF US!
1,590 posted on 10/27/2005 8:29:46 AM PDT by Pukin Dog (Sans Reproache)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1559 | View Replies]

To: lemura
I'll go for prediction #2: le affair Miers will be forgotten by Monday, Bush will nominate a strong constructionist, the conservatives & moderates will rally round ready to fight, and Bush's numbers will be back over 50% within 2 weeks.

I suspect you are correct.

1,591 posted on 10/27/2005 8:29:47 AM PDT by Sloth (You being wrong & me being closed-minded are not the same thing, nor are they mutually exclusive.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1572 | View Replies]

To: Warren_Piece

"It was president Bush's fault that many opposed this nomination. The vitriol, the sheer viciousness of the opposition, however, was NOT his fault."

You're somewhat right. We don't know it was Bush himself. But whoever decided that the best way to control opposition was to insult it, like DU does its opposition, it was definitely their fault, this 'elitist, sexist,' crap that was spewed at the dissenters. That didn't work, either, as it only pissed off the base more and turned some actively against the President.


1,592 posted on 10/27/2005 8:29:48 AM PDT by LibertarianInExile (Miers did the right thing. Now the President can, by appointing Alex Kozinski, 9th Circuit COA.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1477 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
Yes I did.

I could not see this woman on the Supreme Court.

1,593 posted on 10/27/2005 8:29:56 AM PDT by Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1553 | View Replies]

To: lemura

Anything to the right of Miers will be labeled as "Extreme".

Well, the Conservatievs wanted this fight as well as the liberals.

Both groups got just what they asked for. Let the games begin.



1,594 posted on 10/27/2005 8:30:11 AM PDT by EQAndyBuzz (Liberal Talking Point - Bush = Hitler ... Republican Talking Point - Let the Liberals Talk)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1572 | View Replies]

To: rcocean

It's already begun. This blood letting caused by those to the Right of W represents a spledid opportunity for the Dems to "finish him off" politically.

Don't know if they'll succeed, but they'll damn sure try!


1,595 posted on 10/27/2005 8:30:21 AM PDT by Cedric
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1537 | View Replies]

To: thoughtomator
Please read my post - my argument is about style not substance. I officially fell into the "oppose" camp yesterday after reading the 1993 speech. However, my problem is with comments like "cleaning lady", "church lady", "writes like a 7th grader", and making fun of personal notes.

I agree, opposing her was correct. I have a BIG problem with the way it was done by some. If everyone had voiced their opposition like Rush Limbaugh instead of like Ann Coulter, we would have had the same result, and EVERYONE could have been proud of it. It just feels like a hollow victory.

I'm from the south. Manners fall just below God and Country to me.

1,596 posted on 10/27/2005 8:30:24 AM PDT by Warren_Piece (Nashville, TN)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1500 | View Replies]

To: buckeyeblogger

We (the far right wing) DO have a say in this process. The fact that Feinstein is troubled by that is just gravy.


1,597 posted on 10/27/2005 8:30:58 AM PDT by Republic of Texas (Socialism Always Fails)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1568 | View Replies]

To: xzins

Yes, the nomination has injured Bush, first because it revealed that he was unwilling to fight the Senate for a strong candidate and second because it failed.

But if he had not allowed the nomination to be withdrawn, he would have been injured a lot more, indeed would have rendered himself politically dead. And if by disastrous fortune Miers had been confirmed, by a plurality of RINOs and Democrats, he would have been even worse off, because she would have been making a spectacle of herself on the Court for the remaining three years of his term in office, keeping all of yesterday's resentments alive and growing.

I think it needs to be pointed out that he inflicted this injury on himself, by nominating someone who was barely vetted at all. It is obvious that no one in the White House had the faintest notion of what she had written and said in her years with the ABA. Now hopefully he can pull up his socks, as he has often done before, and go into battle for a really stellar candidate.


1,598 posted on 10/27/2005 8:31:14 AM PDT by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1317 | View Replies]

To: Jokelahoma
Oh please, if you can't see the censorship that has taken over this place in the past month your blind. Even bringing it up you throw some victim/pouting "observance" garbage at me to shut-up.

The fact is that this place is owned and run now by the one thought is the only thought police. People have left this place in droves from the attacks overwhelmingly from your side. This used to be a place where all opinions were welcome and respected even if they were wrong. Not anymore, march lockstep or face the rath of the "Conservatives".

If you support this President your not welcome at FR. I would rather fight the good fight and lose than turn my back on President George W Bush.

Pray for W and Our Troops

1,599 posted on 10/27/2005 8:31:14 AM PDT by bray (Iraq, freed from Saddamn now Pray for Freedom from Mohammad)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1473 | View Replies]

To: mosquitobite
Exactly, this is why Miers and Roberts have been so disappointing.

We need to nominate a conservative equivalent of Ginsburg or Breyer.

Then let the Dumbocrats convince the American public that being against the ACLU, against affirmative action, for posting ten commandments, and for the death penalty is "extreme" and "Out of the Mainstream".
1,600 posted on 10/27/2005 8:31:30 AM PDT by rcocean (Copyright is theft and loved by Hollywood socialists)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1512 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,561-1,5801,581-1,6001,601-1,620 ... 3,421-3,436 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