Posted on 10/27/2005 6:09:25 AM PDT by procomone
WASHINGTON - Harriet Miers withdrew her nomination to be a Supreme Court justice Thursday in the face of stiff opposition and mounting criticism about her qualifications.
Bush said he reluctantly accepted her decision to withdraw, after weeks of insisting that he did not want her to step down. He blamed her withdrawal on calls in the Senate for the release of internal White House documents that the administration has insisted were protected by executive privilege.
"It is clear that senators would not be satisfied until they gained access to internal documents concerning advice provided during her tenure at the White House — disclosures that would undermine a president's ability to receive candid counsel," Bush said. "Harriet Miers' decision demonstrates her deep respect for this essential aspect of the constitutional separation of powers — and confirms my deep respect and admiration for her."
"By your definition, then, Miers was not Borked. She was opposed on valid grounds. "
Ok, what grounds? Be specific.
Randy Barnett is the Austin B. Fletcher Professor of Law at Boston University and author of Restoring the Lost Constitution: The Presumption of Liberty. He argued Gonzales v. Raich in the Supreme Court last November
Not exactly an unbiased observer, I'd say. I think he greatly overstates the conclusions that can be drawn from Scalia's opinion in this case.
"It's certainly obvious YOU aren't infallible."
No, I'm not, but I was good enough to see that the argument to which I responded could only rest on a presumption of Bush's infallibility.
"Ok, what grounds? Be specific."
It's coming on 1:30 am here in Yokohama, and I'm not about to type all that in again at this time of night.
If you haven't seen valid objections in the hundreds or thousands of notes here on FR over the past few weeks, then all that could happen is a "Yes it is," "No it's not" exchange, and that wouldn't serve any purpose.
The Federalist Society did not oppose Miers. Only Barnes of the Standard is worth paying attention too certainly not Krissy Kristol. Krautheimer is eclectic so I don't know what his bitch was. Don't particularly care either.
Now lets see what the Whiners can find to complain about with the next nominee.
This has been very instructive and should convince most that the Antis cannot be relied upon for anything but underhanded attacks and assistance to the RATs.
"But which 'conservative base' are you talking about?"
Obviously not you, as you appear not to be very much of a conservative.
I'm thinking Brown. She's a hard-nosed libertarian, which will ruffle the feathers of the more socialist-leaning Dems, but her lower level emphasis on the traditional social conservative idealogy will appeal to the moderates. I don't think the 7 Dems in the 14 will backtrack on her; they'll secure her the up-down (at least they should if they have any sense).
I'm thinking Brown. She's a hard-nosed libertarian, which will ruffle the feathers of the more socialist-leaning Dems, but her lower level emphasis on the traditional social conservative idealogy will appeal to the moderates. I don't think the 7 Dems in the 14 will backtrack on her; they'll secure her the up-down (at least they should if they have any sense).
I'm thinking Brown. She's a hard-nosed libertarian, which will ruffle the feathers of the more socialist-leaning Dems, but her lower level emphasis on the traditional social conservative idealogy will appeal to the moderates. I don't think the 7 Dems in the 14 will backtrack on her; they'll secure her the up-down (at least they should if they have any sense).
"Disagree or not, but do not go on the air or in writing and criticize him by calling him uninformed, losing touch with his base, or accusing him of cronyism etc... for doing what he was elected to do. That just weakens the foundation he works from."
Then you appear to prefer a monarchy, where no one can criticize the king. I would assume then that you are a Bushbot, whatever Bush says or does you will go along with, and never disagree in any public forum with him. Just like people do in dictatorships. Whisper amongst themselves, but never publicly disagree.
Oh I see, you mean like O'Connor, Kennedy, Souter...
In a word:
YES
If not now, when?
If not when we're in the majority, should we wait until the majority of our supporters have tired of spineless behavior, stayed home in droves, and given control of government back to the Leftists??
REALLY??
"You are correct, she is not helping the conservative cause at all imho."
That's nice:
Unable to refute her, you descend to ad hominem attacks.
And here I thought only Dims did that.
Were any in the above list, a member of an evangelical Christian church?"
One made a point of his membership in the Catholic Church, and that the Church adamantly opposes abortion, and that he agreed with the Church:
Anthony Kennedy
'Nuff said.
Based on what?
Think what you will. I am not into a pissin' match about who is more what. That said I'll match my conservatism against anyone.
Please post any comment I made which implied that Bush was infallible.
I won't hold my breath waiting for a response to that question.
Anthony Kennedy 'Nuff said.
No absolute guarantees in life, eh!
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.