I don't suppose it occurs to any of you folks that the exact same outcome could have been accomplished without the vitriol exhibited by so many pundits and people on this board. People could have worked behind the scenes and accomplished a dignified withdrawal, instead of airing dirty laundry for the public's edification.
You all have thro own your lot in with Kristol, Frum, and the rest of the weasel crew, who now apparently think they control the nomination process. Good luck to you.
Thank you, Miss Marple. This is what I've been trying to say. Coulter's "Cleaning Lady" comment was disgusting, but one of the milder ones compared to what we've seen at FR. I've never said that there should be no dissent against Miers, but I have argued that it should be civil, and preferably behind the scenes. Many have burned bridges that will never be rebuilt.
How do you know it would for sure?
If the President had not publicly slapped us in the face, a public response would not have been necessary.
Look, you and a handfull of others here were consistaently wrong on this, thread after thread.
This woman finally withdraws here name, as she should and your "wrong crowd" is here again running your mouth. Give it a rest. You were wrong! And most of you can't even admit it. You just continue to shoot off your mouths.
Look, if he makes another bad choice, he's going to hear about it!
Is that OK with you?
Bump!
I agree wholeheartedly. While the discussion was completely legitimate and of utmost importance, the methods of disagreement were roughly akin to rioting in your own neighborhood and burning it down in protest. I want to make clear that all sides are responsible for this. As my mom always told me, it takes two to tango, or tangle or whatever that saying is.
We're all human, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised, but of all the disappointments surrounding the nominee, that was by far the biggest. And one that it will take me a while to get over because I honestly thought we were better than this.
That is true, and very unfortunate.
By the way, Charles Krauthammer had a decent article the other day called "Saving Face" that seems to be about what has happened. Let's hope this turns out well.
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.
As always, you are the voice of reason...and CLASS.
Thank you!
Examining Miers speeches, writings, and prior experience is "airing dirty laundry?"
There was no evidence whatsoever, Miers was a conservative, or even a Republican. The latest evidence reveals quite the contrary.
This was a poor and dangerous pick by the President and now we have an opportunity for a new beginning.