Posted on 10/04/2005 2:46:19 PM PDT by defconw
LISTEN TO MARK LEVIN ONLINE AND JOIN THE DISCUSSION
6-8PM Eastern
Will we hear
GET OFF THE PHONE YOU MORON, or
GET OFF THE PHONE YOU BIG JERK, or
GET OFF THE PHONE YOU DOPE
The next pick will, so you need all 3 to be originalists, without fail.
Saying the Party didn't tell people that Bloomberg was really a dem.
Levin doesn't say a word. As long as the caller is also willing to bash the President it's fine with Levin.
The next pick will, so you need all 3 picks to be conservative to have a conservative majority, without fail.
Bush NEVER said they did not discuss abortion. He said they did not discuss Roe. They could have talked about Casey or PBA or any number of abortion issthues.
The Libs hate this pick .. they are just holding their breath in hopes the we eat each other alive ...toss this nomination and split the party voater for 06 and 08
But it's a gamble for them .. Either the President is right that Miers is a good conservative choice or another nominee is picked and is a well known conservative judge
Good question. I would also want to know how many clerks that Roberts would get. I read a really good article that in having more than 1 clerk, the decision writing gets pretty far away from that of the actual justice.
PS the article mentioned that Souter had 6 clerks. LOL!
Old Jokes to cheer you up:
The Difference Between Republicans And Democrats
Q: What's a conservative?
A: A liberal who made it through adolescence
Q: How many republicans does it take to raise your taxes?
A: None. The democrats do that.
Q: What is the difference between a liberal and a puppy?
A: A puppy stops whining after it grows up.
Q: What is the difference between an intelligent liberal and Bigfoot?
A: Bigfoot has been spotted.
Q: What is a conservative?
A: A liberal who's been mugged.
Q: What's the difference between a Democrat and a trampoline?
A: You take off your shoes before you jump on a trampoline.
Q: What's the difference between a Democrat and a prostitute?
A: The prostitute give value for the money she takes.
Q: What's the difference between a dead skunk in the road and a dead Democrat in the road?
A: Vultures will eat the skunk.
Q: What's the difference between a Democrat and a catfish?
A: One is an ugly, scum sucking bottom-feeder and the other is a fish.
Q: What do you get when you cross a bad politician with a lawyer?
A: Chelsea.
Q: What do you get when you cross a pilgrim with a democrat?
A: A god-fearing tax collector who gives thanks for what other people have.
Q: Why should Democrats be buried 100 feet deep?
A: Because deep down, they're really good people.
Q: What happens when you cross a pig with a Democrat?
A: Nothing. There are some things a pig won't do.
Q: Why did God create Democrats?
A: In order to make used car salesmen look good.
Q: What is a recent Democrat graduate's usual question in his first job?
A: What would you like to have with your french fries, sir?
Q. How many Democrats does it take to screw in a light bulb?
A. Just one, but it really gets screwed.
Q: How many Democrats does it take to change a lightbulb?
A: It's irrelevant; they still don't know they're in the dark!
None the less, I will share this with all from the Opinion Jourral online (not my opinion - for discussion purposes.)
========================================================
The Case for Miers Since we are an inveterate optimist, we thought we'd round up some of the better arguments we've seen in favor of President Bush's appointment of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court. One encouraging sign is that Leonard Leo backs Miers enthusiastically: I have worked closely with Harriet in the past and I am very excited about the president's pick of my friend. . . . Her judicial philosophy is summed up in the statement she made this morning accepting the nomination: "It is the responsibility of every generation to be true to the founders' vision of the proper role of the courts and our society. If confirmed, I recognize that I will have a tremendous responsibility to keep our judicial system strong and to help ensure that the courts meet their obligations to strictly apply the laws and the constitution." Leo is an executive of the Federalist Society, and we have worked closely with him in the past (he's co-editor of "Presidential Leadership: Rating the Best and the Worst in the White House," which is available from the OpinonJournal bookstore), so his view carries considerable weight with us. Angry Left blogger Markos Moulitsas sees the nomination as a victory for his side: Several Democrats, including [Harry] Reid, have already come out praising Miers, which ultimately will only fuel the right-wing meltdown on the decision. . . . This is the sort of pick that can have real-world repercussions in 2006, with a demoralized Republican Right refusing to do the heavy lifting needed to stem big losses. That Bush went this route rather than throwing his base the red meat they craved is nothing less than a sign of weakness. For whatever reason, Rove and Co. decided they weren't in position to wage a filibuster fight with Democrats on a Supreme Court justice and instead sold out their base. . . . My early sense is that this is already a victory--both politically and judicially--for Democrats. We are not wholly unworried that Moulitsas is right, but the Angry Left's proven capacity for self-delusion provides us a great deal of comfort. Blogger Bill Dyer makes a pretty good argument against those who fear Miers will turn out to be another David Souter: To you, me, the Senate, and the public, Harriet Miers may seem as much of a blank slate as David Souter was when Bush-41 nominated him. . . . But that is emphatically not the case from the perspective of George W. Bush. . . . He knows, and he's always known, that the blame for an appointee who turned out to become "another Souter" would likewise be placed on him. It's a responsibility and an opportunity whose benefits and risks he sought, but that he obviously takes very seriously indeed, because from Dubya's perspective, Harriet Miers was the one prospective female nominee about whom he personally felt that he could be most certain in predicting what sort of Justice she will become. . . . When Dubya looks at her, he doesn't think "blank slate, might be a Souter." He thinks: "I know her, she's been my lawyer through thick and thin, and I know things about her judgment and character that nobody else knows about her, but that leave me entirely comfortable about how she'll turn out as a Justice." David Bernstein makes an interesting argument: What do Miers and [Chief Justice John] Roberts have in common? They both have significant executive branch experience, and both seem more likely than other potential candidates to uphold the Administration on issues related to the War on Terror (e.g., Padilla and whether a citizen arrested in the U.S. can be tried in military court). Conservative political activists want someone who will interpret the Constitution in line with conservative judicial principles. But just as FDR's primary goal in appointing Justices was to appoint Justices that would uphold the centerpiece of his presidency, the New Deal, which coincidentally resulted in his appointing individuals who were liberal on other things, perhaps Bush sees his legacy primarily in terms of the War on Terror, and appointing Justices who will acquiesce in exercises of executive authority is his priority, even if it isn't the priority of either his base or the nation as a whole. Such Justices may be coincidentally conservative on other issues, just as FDR's nominees moved the [Supreme Court] generally to the Left. Knight Ridder reports that "a former campaign manager says [Miers] opposed abortion rights while running for Dallas City Council in 1989": "She is on the extreme end of the anti-choice movement," said Lorlee Bartos, who managed Miers' first and only political campaign and said they discussed abortion once during the race. "I think Harriet's belief was pretty strongly felt," Bartos said Monday. "I suspect she is of the same cloth as the president." This column is moderately pro-abortion, but if Miers disagrees with us as a matter of policy, that argues in her favor, for we are also pro-democracy, and Roe v. Wade is a constitutional and political monstrosity that should be overturned yesterday. If Miers is really a pro-life extremist, it's unlikely that she would vote to uphold it. John Kerry* has weighed in against Miers: "America can't afford a replay of the unrevealing confirmation process that preceded Chief Justice Roberts' confirmation. . . . Without a meaningful exchange during the confirmation hearings, there is no way to know how Ms. Miers views the Constitution, whether she's a strict constructionist in the mold of Justices Scalia and Thomas, or whether she will protect fundamental rights." This from a guy who claimed his "war hero" record qualified him to be president but refused to release his military records until after the election, and then only to a handful of friendly journalists. We wish we could say Kerry's opposition was an argument in Miers's favor, but the guy is so mindlessly partisan--he even opposed Souter!--that his words have no significance. None of this is to say we aren't still disappointed with the Miers nomination. There were so many plainly excellent prospects, and we would have liked to have seen the president call the Democrats' bluff and have a fight, which would have been good for both the Republicans and the country. We can only hope he'll have another chance to do so--and when that chance comes, the Republicans will still have a big Senate majority. * We'll stop doing these footnotes when Kerry supporters get the bumper stickers off their Volvos.
If Mark annoys you so much, perhaps you should pick another thread. One dedicated to his show would seem to be a poor choice.
I chose President Bush because he assured those of us who supported him that he would fight this battle without flinching and that he would place the most qualified strict constructionist on SCOTUS that he could find.
Anyone who believes Miers is the most qualified conservative nominee Bush could find is a total fool.
Levin is the "gold standard" on this topic as far as I am concerned. he's not just some wild talking head, this is his profession, he worked for Reagan vetting judges, he knows the machinations of the SCOTUS.
Stevens and Ginsburg can't make it much longer. That's where the battle is. Mier will still be better than O'Connor, any day of the week.
Here's what Rod Dreher, now an editor at the Dallas Morning News, posted at The Corner a while ago describing Will's column:
GEORGE F. WILL'S BOMBSHELL COLUMN [ROD DREHER]
George F. Will goes as far as he can to oppose Miers's nomination without explicitly doing so. I don't have a link to it yet, as it just moved on the wire. It's terrific, and might just turn this thing around for conservatives. Here's the lede:
Senators beginning what ought to be a protracted and exacting scrutiny of Harriet Miers should be guided by three rules. First, it is not important that she be confirmed. Second, it might be very important that she not be.
Third, the presumption -- perhaps rebuttable but certainly in need of rebutting -- should be that her nomination is not a defensible exercise of presidential discretion to which senatorial deference is due.
It is not important that she be confirmed because there is no evidence that she is among the leading lights of American jurisprudence, or that she possesses talents commensurate with the Supreme Court's tasks. The president's "argument" for her amounts to: Trust me. There is no reason to, for several reasons.
The reasons Will gives are brutal to Bush, and are, in a nutshell, as follows:
1) Bush has no interest or ability to make "sophisticated judgments" about such matters, and it's impossible to believe that anyone who can would have recommended Harriet Miers;
2) Bush "forfeited his right to be trusted as a custodian of the Constitution" by calling McCain-Feingold unconstitutional back in 2000, then signing it into law.
3) unless Miers demonstrates in her hearing that she has "hitherto undisclosed interests and talents pertinent to the court's role," the Senate has a duty to reject the nomination to prevent this or any other president "from reducing the Supreme Court to a private plaything useful for fulfilling whims on behalf of friends";
4) the Miers nomination vindicates the principle of tokenism under the rubric of diversity; writes Will, "for this we need a conservative president?"
LOL!
My only hope is Bush uses Meirs as a wedge in the Senate to dump the 60 vote nonsense. He'll be back in good graces again.
I am lock step with Mark. But hopefully there is room here for all voices as we get this sorted out.
:-) Great minds think alike. I linked it earlier on this thread.
I think she is an originalist....I really don't understand where she not an originalist just because she didn't wear a robe like our elites.
He stated he would appoint people to the courts who would not legislate from the bench. I trusted him then enough to support in every way I could. I have not been disappointed with his appointments to the federal courts, have you?
Given that he has earned the trust you speak of and since he has similarly stated that Harriet Miers will not legislate from the bench I trust he has tole me the truth.
I'm old fashioned, a handshake, trust and loyalty are the coin of my realm.
"It's 8 o'clock UNDER GOD!!"
Gotta love it.
Good night, everybody. Don't forget to tip your waitress.
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.