Skip to comments.If You Don't Trust Him to Choose, Why Did You Vote for Him?
Posted on 10/14/2005 6:47:23 PM PDT by quidnunc
click here to read article
The answer is easy...it was either Bush or Gore, or Bush or Kerry....
I have a wait and see attitude about Miers and yes I do trust Bush as much as I can trust any politician.....but the question is pretty lame.
Actually, I think the question is insulting.
Well, who the hell were we going to vote for? Our choice was what? Bush or Gore/Kerry----oh I forgot we had Nader in there and the Libertarians (who I have a soft spot for in amny things). The SCOTUS choice is far bigger than the concerns of social conservatives. It has a lot to do with more of an originalist approach and each branch of government operating as it is supposed to. Ok I am not minimizing the concerns of social conservatives but look at the bigger picture--and still I think Miers falls short.
Who ate all the strawberry ice cream?
The Republican Party isn't a religion where the leader gets the doctrine of infallibility applied to his decisions.
My other choice was John Kerry.
No that is not why. We did not blindly trust Bush. But we looked at Roberts record of working for Rehnquist, working for Reagan, working for Bush. We saw a long history of supporting Republicans and making rulings based on Constitutional principles. We have none of that with Harriet. Harriet has supported more Democrats in her life than Republicans. Maybe Harriet has changed, but we are not confortable hoping.
You must have missed a few, there have been some really lame ones.
What makes you think they voted for him or he was their first choice?
This place was banana's when he got the nomination. Almost as bad as it is now.
But the choice was between Bush and Kerry: arsenic or cyanide.
I mistakenly believed that after re-election, Bush could be convinced to control the borders. Now my support is for the WOT and not much else.
Because Bush promised to put good solid conservatives of the breed of Scalia and Thomas on the Court. He did not compromise on court appointments during his first term, preferring to endure the filibuster, so it looked like a good bet to vote for him again in 2004 on the basis of these promises. That was also the reason why people worked so hard to increase his majority in the Senate.
Now he has broken his promise. It's not the first time that a politician has done so, but I will say that Bush is usually a man of his word, which makes it all the more disappointing. Maybe he thought he was doing the right thing by nominating Miers, but now he needs to think again.
You are right, and I don't think any honest Republican could say that G.W.Bush is a Conservative. He is however President, and therefore has the right to nominate whomsoever he pleases. All the elitist Conservatives pissing and moaning about Meirs are just like Schumer; they think they, not the President, have the right to nominate the next Supreme Court Justice.
He's entitled to favor his cause, wrongheaded as it may be... as we are free to express our displeasure. I actually appreciate it, because it makes the low signal-to-noise quality apparent. So many articles, so little substance, so few answers.
Apparently "they" don't even have the right to express an opinion of what should be done with this abominomination.
Not really, at least not for me. Bush made a very specific campaign promise to nominate folks like Scalia and Thomas. He should expect us to see if his nominees actually measure up to that standard.
Assumes facts not in evidence.
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.