Posted on 10/03/2005 4:06:25 AM PDT by johnmecainrino
Which is to say that they set up high-profile decisions in such a way that they win NO MATTER WHAT HAPPENS. In this case, Miers being rejected by the Senate will set up either a Janice Rogers Brown SCOTUS nomination or a nuking of the Senate's filibuster rule, depending on how she is rejected.
...and if she isn't rejected, then a pro-life, mission-sponsoring, evangelical Christian fundamentalist lands on the life-long SCOTUS bench.
Win. Win.
Well said.
Took me 29 years.
I put aside the unknown nature of Roberts and supported him. I did so knowing that we were going to get another one and it would be the dinger. I waited, anticipated, longed for......Miers? This is what I get from all my money to the Rep party. I took a fistfull of cash down to Bush/Cheney headquarters last year. I have been let down.
I will not donate to the Pubs next year if this turns out the way I'm afraid it's going to. If I'm wrong, then I may donate, but more sparingly, without my heart, knowing that the GOP will gamble with my finacial and voting support.
LOL....you go Tom.
Too funny....nice slap to a perennial moderate
Is this the same guy (Hecht) who was mentioned as her minister on this thread?
He has a majority in the Senate -- IN NAME ONLY.
Why is it that the people who are so quick to say that party doesn't matter are the first people to say that it does matter when it supports their false premise.
BTW, if your dog has balls, she ain't a girl.
True, and it's all we have to go on at this time.
OMG, some of you are so blinded by your gratefulness to not have a liberal...you delude yourselves into believing that Bush is the BRILLIANT CONSERVATIVE,,,,threading a thousand needles and interweaving in such a delicate montage of calculated deceptions that all the liberals, media, and dems are sucked into he web.
It is pathetic.
Bush is not a conservative.
This nomination was as miscalculated for Bush and the braintrust as Hussein's miscalcualations in the Gulf.
The GOP will lose massive seats in the midterms. In effect Bush has become what Clinton was for the midterms...The Dems will take back the senate and then it won't matter who is nominated any longer...Problem is that Hillary will likely be President...and the onl thing we can do is sit back and admire her willingness to fight for liberal and socialist causes.........something that Bush has failed to do for conservative causes.
I haven't read it...please fill me in on how our President has betrayed us.
I haven't read it...please fill me in on how our President has betrayed us.
" No, Father Drinan may be a devout Catholic, but that is certainly no guarantee that he is a Christian. He may or may not be (some RCC adherents are), but his 'devotion' to the RCC doesn't do it. A Christian is one with a personal relationship with Jesus Christ; commitments to ceremonial observances and/or human organizations have nothing -- absolutely nothing -- to do with it."
Spare us the hidden Romanist attack here -- Those who express their faith as faithful Catholics are Christian -- in fact the same ancient Church that coined the term Christian coined the word Catholic -- ie Antioch!
Yes there are those who put their faith in rubrics and wrapping of the faith -- However, this is found in Catholic, Orthodox, Coptic, Syrian, Armenian, Protestant and Anglican traditions.
The fact that she tows a Bible in hand is no guarantee as well, but it a step in a postive direction.
IHMO Pres Bush realized he didn't have the political cache to nominate a judge w/ a record to the right of Scalia(a Catholic). He chose a judge who was a conservative in his opinion w/o a record.
Last chance tonight ohio.
You have been bested and you know it.
Next time you see the name Eaker walk away unless you have facts.
Next time you say that someone is hiding post your real name. I have.
I will not forget and neither will the others that have seen this.
Tom Eaker
About Miers: why don't we all wait & see how she handles the committee, what she says in response to questions, etc., etc., instead of jumping to conclusions about her?
BTW: she wouldn't be the first SCOTUS appointee without judicial experience, or who has a relatively obscure background.
Rehnquist had no judicial experience prior to his appointment by Nixon; his main public service had been two years in the Office of the Legal Counsel.
Please, the Rhenquist argument does not wash. Rehnquist graduated #1 from Stanford law, and had written several briefs and opinions. Miss Miers graduated from SMU, not in the head of the pack. Being single and without children is a factor, relating to commitment and decision making abilities. The single thing can be overlooked, with a proven track record of conservative values. There just is not one here.
5. Assuming nominee Mier is confirmed, IMHO it looks like the Supreme Court makeup is going to be pretty close to the same with respect to judicial philosophy.
Your points, numbers #4 and #5, contradict each other. If we don't know how she'll rule, then we don't know what the new judicial philosophy of the court will be.
BTW, if you're going to contradict yourself in a punch-list of ideas, the best thing to do is try and have a greater enumerated spacing between the contradicting points.
Okay?
Illegal criminals invading every ranch in Texas but his.
Start there.
If true, than you must be single and childless.
Of course what you say is not true.
Deciding that this appointee has to be a woman therefore reducing the pool to 30% of those available.
Why can't he just pick the best candidate?
Why?
ohio has yer back. No information or facts, but a bush-bot until the end.
PS: I used your double post so I could give two answers.
Well, you convinced me of the error of my thinking. Never before have we as a society formed opinions about people based upon their lifestyle. Liberal Dems have never brought up a persons marital status. Nope, it just never happened because FreeReign said so.
If the Democrats Bork her, it only makes Bush look weaker than he already looks and increases pressure on him to come up with an even more "concialatory" nominee to hasten the process along. If the Democrats let her sail through, Bush pisses off his base. If Republican senators don't like her, then that doesn't help the Republicans in either the WH or the capitol. If a supreme court nominee has to rely on his obscurity instead of his intellect to get into the court, he probably is going to be outsmarted time an again by the people who have turned the courts into legislatures.
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.