If You Don't Trust Him to Choose, Why Did You Vote for Him?

Pardon My English ^ | October 14, 2005 | Kerry Jacoby

[csmusaret]

I have plenty of bitches about Bush policies , but I don't think I, or any other Republican, should presume to know more than he does about this nominee until we have at least heard her at the hearings.

[LibLieSlayer]

Well I am an honest Conservative. I think President Bush is a Conservative. He is not the most Conservative man in the party, but by-and-large he is Conservative.

When I compare him to my Senator Lott, he is very Conservative. Did you know that right before Katrina hit Lott came out in support of eco-terrorists in Mississippi, favoring a moratorium on offshore drilling for Natural Gas? I'll bet his arse waiting in line for 5 hours to buy gas after Katrina hit us, had a modifying effect on his PC crap!

I also believe that we will see movement on the borders soon. Frist announced today that it was on the docket. It should have been done long ago. Washington is so screwed up today, it is amazing that anything can get accomplished.

LLS

[Rokke]

You know, I'm getting REALLY tired of reading the phony quote that the President "promised he would nominate judges like Thomas and Scalia". Since each of you have made similar comments tonight, I challenge any one of you to find when the President said that. Let me help you out...Al Gore actually said what you say Bush said, so don't use that as your reference. What the President DID promise is that he would nominate conservative judges that will not legislate from the bench. Everyone who actually knows Meirs says she will be just that kind of judge. You are accusing Bush of breaking a promise he never made, and assuming he is not keeping the promise he did make. I'm calling your bluff...either point out when he said what you claim he said, or stop repeating a lie.

[Paladin2]

Sorry, we know enough now.

Too old, not a parent, questionable track record, trial lawyer, no prior interest in Constitutional issues. There are plenty of more qualified candidates.

[OkieDoke]

Gotta cite for that vegan claim? It was my understanding that everything God made was for their use.
I don't have chapter and verse, but I know that one of their sons liked a good barbeque while the other was a sod-buster. Remember? Things got a little heated when God spurned Cain's offering and he got marked down and had to go to anger-management classes?

[ovrtaxt]

Given the choice, we had to vote for him.

It certainly helped that he promised to nominate constitutional originalists. Now what do we have?

??????????????????

Exactly.

[diogenes ghost]

"NOW YOU DO NOT KNOW THAT!" Haven't been reading very much of what's been posted about this, have ya? Go back, look at her campaign donations, then return and tell us we don't know that. I'll hold my breath...Honest.

[wtc911]

Trust but verify. The problem here is that there is nothing there to verify.

[csmusaret]

Who said there were no better qualified candidates? That is beside the point. She is his nominee and only he has the right or power to make the nomination; not you, me George Will,Limbaugh, Coulter or anyone else. Let's wait for the hearings.

[lainie]

they think they, not the President, have the right to nominate the next Supreme Court Justice.

That's not true. "They" do think they're entitled to critize what they see as a poor decision. And they are!

[kcar]

Bush said: "The voters will know I’ll put competent judges on the bench, people who will strictly interpret the Constitution and will not use the bench to write social policy. I believe in strict constructionists."

How many of them are on the SCOTUS now? I count Scalia and Thomas. Wrong?

[Behind Liberal Lines]

I'm willing to give the President the benefit of the doubt. However, I voted for a President, not a dictator, not a king.

My vote is not an oath of blind, unquestioning, obedience.

[panaxanax]

Keep your panties on, csmusaret! All I did was ask a question and try to make a point tha GWB needs to listen to the people.

Your attack was unfounded. Yes indeed, let's wait for the hearings. You may be eating a huge slice of humble pie.

She's probably a nice lady, BUT from what I've read from critics far smarter than you and I, I don't think she has the qualifications to be a Supreme Court Justice.

[PAR35]

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.

You are hereby estopped from complaining about any of President Hillary's judicial nominations.

[TheForceOfOne]

The only thing the anti-Miers crowd has succeeded at is playing the roll of the "useful idiots".

They have lured the left into believing she is a safe choice and lowered the expectations of Miers at the hearings.

Anything she does better than the low expectations that have been created about her will boost her stock and catapult her through the hearing and into the Supreme Court as the newest Justice.

I believe she is a conservative, and capable of the position she was selected to hold, but I will wait for the hearings to confirm my opinion.

President Bush will not back down, anyone who knows him knows that. If Miers is nominated, her opinions will be public knowledge by the time the next Justice steps down. By that time, if she has demonstrated a conservative view of the Constitution, then the left will be in full panic mode making the debate over Miers look like a walk in the park.

This fight over Miers is not the big fight everyone thinks it is.

[Rokke]

"How many of them are on the SCOTUS now? I count Scalia and Thomas. Wrong?"

Wrong. First, you obviously can't find any reference to him saying "he'd appoint Thomas and Scalia types" to the Court (it doesn't exist). So kindly stop repeating the lie. And second, there are currently three and soon to be four in the SCOTUS.

[fallujah-nuker]

Yep!

[lainie]

Isn't it amazing? Voice an opinion and get called "just like Schumer." The irony is that, all power being inherent in The People, we're supposed to be the ultimate arbiter.

[Paladin2]

From

http://www.professorbainbridge.com/2005/10/hewitt_and_mirg.html

" GOV. BUSH: The most primary issue--the most primary issue is will they strictly interpret the Constitution of the United States?

MR. RUSSERT: Will your judges and judge appointments to the Supreme Court be similar to Scalia in their temperament and judicial outlook?

GOV. BUSH: Well, I don't think you're going to find many people to be actually similar to him. He's an unusual man. He's an intellect. The reason I like him so much is I got to know him here in Austin when he came down. He's witty, he's interesting, he's firm. There's a lot of reasons why I like Judge Scalia. And I like a lot of the other judges as well. I mean, it's kind of a harsh question to ask because it now pits me--some of whom are friends of mine. I mean, it's--and so, in all due respect, Judge Thomas.

Arguably, Bush didn't explicitly promise to appoint judges in the Scalia/Thomas mold, although I think that he certainly intended people like me (and Hugh and Paul, for that matter) to draw that inference. BUT: Contrary to what Hugh claims, there is no doubt in my mind that Bush expressly stated an intent to apply a litmus test - namely whether or not the nominee was committed to what Hugh calls a "committed to a particular theory"; namely, strict construction."

Close enough.

[beezdotcom]

now dont get in a snit. WHEN DID THE TERM "ORIGINALIST" COME INTO USE?

Non sequitur. The title is still an insulting question. It makes a blatant assumption about "why I voted for Bush". It also demands that I accept his choices without question.

Well, I'm sorry. Bush is my President, and in general, I support him. But his softened stance on some other issues (borders and spending, to name two) has shaken some of that initial trust. Yes, he's made some good, solid picks for the federal bench, and in John Roberts, as well - but this was readily apparent when he picked them. Miers is still somewhat of a mystery, but more importantly, that breaks with his previous pattern - and whenever a pattern deviates, it is smart to raise questions.