Posted on 10/10/2005 7:13:24 PM PDT by birbear
I know we're all sick to death of Mier's Vanity posts. But I haven't seen this one addressed yet. Simple question. But one that will require a lot of speculation.
To be fully upfront: I'm not pleased with the Mier's nomination, but Bush is the president I helped elect, and I'll stand by him.
The question:
Why DIDN'T Bush nomiate one of the more popular, well known conservatives to be his Supreme Court nominee?
Re the question carefully.
I don't care about the reasons why he nominated Miers. And in the end, she may turn out to be the perfect justice. I'm more curious as to why Bush turned from the conventional wisdom.
He had to know it would upset the conservatives. I'm sure his advisors around him predicted this type of divisive storm around the party. So it really begs the question. Why NOT one of the other ones?
"Why DIDN'T Bush nomiate one of the more popular, well known conservatives to be his Supreme Court nominee?"
Taht's exactly what it comes down to for me. And why I feel it's more than a little arrogant for the RNC'ers to be bashing conservatives as "sexist and elitist" without giving us sufficient reasoning behind this.
W does not have 51 reliably Conservative votes in the Senate, so he out-foxed everyone by nominating HM. It's a master storke!
What message does this send to conservative judges? Do we really want to say to them that if they stand up for conservative judicial philosophy they won't be considered for the Supreme Court? In a way this forms a litmus test in and of itself. That being that if you rule on any controversial cases, you’d better rule as a liberal because otherwise you are disqualified from supreme court service.
The only question is whether it was the Dems or RINOs that caused the most trepidation.
Maybe. I know I'm tired of the whole thing.
When do the hearings start? Let's get on with it already.
You said it.
Please direct your complaint to the Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee.
Well, I don't think the RNC can come right out and say, we've got a bunch of RINO's and lily livered Republicans in the Senate.
But everybody knows the President couldn't get his main picks through the Senate (Estrada) and had to eventually recess appoint Bolton to the UN...and it wasn't because of the Dems, but because many of the Republicans don't have a spine.
So why should we think the President should be able to push through a controversial (to the Dems that is, but also to folks like Specter or Warner) SC nominee.
That's great post. well reasoned, well thought out and apparently well sourced but it won't make any difference to the Jim Jones wing of the Republican party. They've gone off of the cliff, reverted to their "terrible twos" and are irredeemable.
>More than one of the persons we might have wanted made it clear to the President that they would not accept his nomination if selected...<
These very judges already know what is going on, and I believe they don't want any part of it. JMHO.
So he can pass the Amnesty bill.
Possible answers:
1) The candidates you like might not want to go through the scrutiny they would get. IOW, they declined the offer.
2) Some candidates were not very well known to GWB. They could turn out to be another Souter. He wants to avoid that if at all possible.
3) Meirs just might be a great candidate.
storke..LOL
Anyway, it could be a master stroke. One thing's for sure, after 5+ years people still insist on misunderestimating him, even his own base.
Perhaps because he doesn't give them or the Senate the same level of trust that you do?
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.