Posted on 10/03/2005 7:04:43 AM PDT by buckeyeblogger
lol, If Dirty Harry wants her than there is no way in heck I want her on that bench.
Thank you sir! May I have another?! </sycophant>
Hey Bush - why don't you raise taxes now - you'll be a certified Democrat then.
I find it difficult to believe that Bush would nominate anyone for SCOTUS who doesn't share his views about strict constructionist interpretations of the Constitution and judicial restraint.
She's been by his side as his personal counsel for years. He knows her judicial views very well - I think she'll do just fine.
My word, what's the point in sacrificing someone?
Why not do it correctly the first time?
Yes he would.
Could you imagine his dissents??
And Bush signed the Campaign Finance/Speech Repression act because he "knew" the Supreme Court would never approve it. We know how well that worked out.
1. Letting Miers be Assoc. Justice but will ask some harsh yet token 'difficult questions' during the hearing, or
2. Oppose her nomination.
#1, we'll get another SDO. #2, the MSM and Democrats will argue, "Look! Those conservatives cannot stand even moderate conservative. They're clearly out ot the mainstream!"
I hate to think that Bush puts this situation upon us!
Do you have a link on this?
Is Reid happy about the pick or that Conservatives are jumping off the doom and gloom cliff??
Of course he could have made a better pick in terms of solid conservative record and qualifications, but I don't think you can say that he has not chosen a solid conservative pick. It is too early to tell and we just don't know, just like we don't really know how Roberts will turn out. So I think that Mark Levin is being too sweeping in his condemnation. Plus, a blank slate will presumably be easier to get confirmed without a fillibuster on the Roberts model.
"Franck & Miers
[Mark R. Levin 10/03 09:50 AM]
I understand Matt's point, as he's written so eloquently about it many times. But, in truth, we already know what's going on here, and that the president, despite a magnificent farm team from which to choose a solid nominee, chose otherwise. Miers was chosen for two reasons and two reasons alone: 1. she's a she; 2. she's a long-time Bush friend. Otherwise, there's nothing to distinguish her from thousands of other lawyers. And holding a high post in the Bar, which the White House seems to be touting, is like holding a high position in any professional organization. But it reveals nothing about the nominee's judicial philosophy. There are many top officials in the Bar who I wouldn't trust to handle a fender-bender. Also, early in his term, the president singled out the Bar for its partisan agenda and excluded it from a formal role in judicial selection. The president said he would pick a candidate like Antonin Scalia or Clarence Thomas, and he did not. We all know of outstanding individuals who fit that bill, and they were once again passed over. Even David Souter had a more compelling resume that Miers.
The president and his advisors missed a truly historic opportunity to communicate with the American people about their government, the role of all three branches of the federal system, and the proper function of the judiciary. More importantly, they have failed to help the nation return to the equipoise of our constitutional system. And the current justices whose arrogance knows no bounds will be emboldened by this selection. They will see it as affirmation of their "extra-constitutionalism." The president flinched. Some have compared have compared profligate spending to Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal. But no one will accuse him of FDR's boldness when it comes to the Supreme Court.
If people are disappointed, they have every reason to be."
Entire quote by Mark Levin.
Bush has bushwacked his supporters.
And I am expressing hope that she is a conservative ideologue who intends on strictly interpreting the consititution and I also "hope" that after her first term we can reflect and say she voted with Thomas and Scalia and Roberts 100% of the time.
"Hey Bush - why don't you raise taxes now - you'll be a certified Democrat then."
It will be interesting to see whether he will support the end to the death tax that was promised.
Quoting Laura Ingraham, and I have no reason to believe she is lying.
She's pissed as well. "Stealth nominees have never worked out well for Conservatives."
3. She is a Christian.
Or maybe thats a 1.
Two words. Michael Brown.
I almost expect to find she was counsel to the Arabian Horse Association.
Levin's take is the same as mine. Lawyers expect a Supreme Court appointee to be a heavyweight.
"Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., had urged the president to consider Miers, according to several officials familiar with Bush's consultations with Congress."
Exactly. Our Founding Fathers were very wise.
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.