Posted on 10/28/2005 4:30:00 AM PDT by linkinpunk
Edited on 10/28/2005 6:49:30 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
By E. J. Dionne Jr.
WASHINGTON -- The damage President Bush and the conservative movement have inflicted on their drive to pack the U.S. Supreme Court with allies will not be undone by Harriet Miers' decision to withdraw her nomination.
(Excerpt) Read more at realclearpolitics.com ...
Listen Granny, if he picks a proven, qualified, solid, non-crony, it won't be a problem.
Unlike the RATS, we are not robots and do everything our master says just because he says so. If that is what some want, then join the RAT party.
Yeah, I feel reeaal bad about it.
"They can spin it any way they want but Miers was "borked" because she did not pass a litmus test..."
I think you are a bit confused. Bork had his "Borking" in confirmation hearings, he didn't withdraw his nomination before the hearings like Miers did. There is a huge difference.
When a Dem is president he nominates to the Court judges who will legislate from the bench. This is fine with E.J. Dionne. When a 'Pub is President he nominates judges who will interpret the Constitution according to its original meaning. This, according to E.J., is "packing the Court".
E. J. Dionne Jr. is a liberal and hates us. If he thought we were doing damage to ourselves, he would be sitting gleefully and quietly in a corner celebrating. We've hit a nerve with the libs...
O'Connor's decisions in these cases --where she will almost certainly join with Ginsburg, Breyer, Souter, and Stevens-- will have long lasting repercussions.
When will an opportunity come to overturn the damage O'Connor will wreak this term? Who knows.
Wrong. If you are not fighting RATS, then you are not fighting back!
The RATS are in perpetual death match with us. If we don't fight fire with fire we will lose. The "New Tone" is a joke and did not work.
LOL! Pot Kettle stuff!
My vitriol is directed at those who caused this damage to the party and no one else.
Your vitriol was directed at the President, the Senate and the nominee and everyone who tried to stand in the way of it.
You don't even know what you have wrought, despite many trying to tell you.
You will understand it by 08. You had better believe it. This is it, no more patience. This coalition is broken irrepairably this time. That is that....We have had enough.
NOT ME !!!!!!!!!! It's some disappointed, demoralized dude. This has serious repurcussions. Some don't even want to join the "New Justice Coalition". Frankly, I don't blame them.
"You don't even know what you have wrought, despite many trying to tell you."
No we don't and neither do you since Meirs was an empty slate at best and was otherwise completely unqualified for the job.
You provide no support of her nomination because there is none.
"Trust Me", "I know her heart", I trust the president" etc etc are not arguments. Those are excuses. They might play with RATS and uninformed people, but not with conservatives and people who pay attention to what is going on.
If anything, the RINO's were just a taught a valuable lesson in elections and expectations. "Sen. McCain, would you like to be considered for the presidential nomination in 2008? Hm. Let's look at your record. Oh, we see that you voted against the president on the senate floor during SCOTUS hearings. Oh, that's too bad. Maybe it's time for retirement, Sen. McCain. Oh, and that's bad news for you, too, Sen. Graham, since you were almost certainly pegged for a Cabinet position in a McCain presidency..."
This vote is not just a vote for SCOTUS. It's going to play a very big role in who's in play for the 2008 nomination. McCain and all the RINO's you fear would vote down a conservative nominee are interested in the power they have a chance at getting in 2008 - if they don't piss off the wrong people.
The RINO's will not turn coat with 2006 around the corner and 2008 in view. A revolt from the base, as we've seen, is not a pleasant thing.
Q17. Constitutional IssuesIn answer to question 17, you explained that as Counsel to the President you are regularly faced with issues involving constitutional questions, but gave us no specifics about the issues themselves, or the work that you personally did. Please provide the Committee with details concerning the specific matters you handled, the constitutional issues presented in those matters, and the positions you took related to those issues. This question was designed to help the Committee learn more about your experience with constitutional law, and if most of it was gained during your years in the White House, it is important that we know more about the specifics of that experience. ...
Q22. Potential Conflicts of Interest
Please be more specific in your answer to this question by telling the Committee any categories of cases from which you plan to recuse yourself, and by addressing in particular the problem of recusal as it relates to the litigation of cases arising out of matters on which you worked at the White House, or as a lawyer for President Bush in his personal capacity, or in service to his various campaigns. We are aware of the statutes and codes that generally govern these matters, but recusal decisions of Supreme Court Justices are more complicated because they are not subject to further review. The Committee would like you to address the issues specific to your situation.
The difference between the very real public call for documents, made to the WH via the press, and the formal recapitulation, isn't material to the debate.
It flies in the face of fact to argue that no GOP Senator, and no DEM Senator was requesting internal documents. The pressure was there, regardless of the presence of an objectionable written request.
I will ask you one question, and please be serious:
Did you believe GWB when he said she was the most qualified person for the job? Yes or No?
I agree.
This will rival the tremendous fall-out as a result the failure of the Lani Guanier nomination (sarcasm)
The process of checks and balances WORKED. In fact, if Bush comes through with a good new nominee we can mend our wounds quite nicely in time for 2006.
Precedent trumps articles? Then Dred Scott would still be in force.
LOL! Pot Kettle stuff!
I've admitted that I am no choir boy, and I willingly admit it yet again.
Your vitriol was directed at the President, the Senate and the nominee and everyone who tried to stand in the way of it.
By complaints go in those directions, yes. But for the most part, my complaints have avoided personal attacks, and I can't recall EVER, not one time, making a personal attack except in defense of myself.
You don't even know what you have wrought, despite many trying to tell you.
None of us has a crystal ball. I defer to the professional pollsters, etc. for their prognostication. I personally think there is a big upside to having the GOP openly advocate for strict constructionist judges, even if the battle is lost on any given nominee. I think the conservative cause benefits more when the conservative message is in the open, than when the conservative message is kept under wraps for whatever reason.
You will understand it by 08. You had better believe it. This is it, no more patience. This coalition is broken irrepairably this time. That is that....We have had enough.
Okay. Bye.
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.