Posted on 10/05/2005 5:48:03 AM PDT by saveliberty
Thank You! :)
So what do you two suggest? Shall the President put up someone all the talking heads approve of and be soundly defeated by the SINators. Then we have NO judge or continual fighting for another judge.
Speaking only for myself - I trust the President more than any of the pundits, presstitutes, media at large (no offense Tony) or most especially ANY person in Congress at this time. JMHO
You are right. We forgot the Greg Kelly rule. :-(
*How* can you forget the Greg Kelly rule?
I admit to being very mixed on this nomination. I love our president- I've trusted him when it wasn't easy to do so. I come to this as the mom of an active-duty combat soldier who's been to Iraq.
I pay attention to politics and current events, attempting to inform myself and come to conclusions based on facts.
My personal choice for this spot was Brown- I was REALLY disappointed when she- or someone like her- wasn't nominated. Then I began to listen..read..learn about Miers.
I can't say that I'm thrilled with anything I've learned- but no RED flags have gone up for me either.
What I am learning is how challenging a task it is to try being objective when my personal inclination is to support this president.
I'm still on the fence about this nominee- but I've learned a great deal this week- about how I think and reach conclusions.
I have to run.
Apparently, now my job responsibilities include translating training materials into a foreign language. What if I make a mistake (as I often do) and instead of giving instructions to reboot I tell the users to find a boat?
LOL!
LOL!
Appeasing the democrats and rinos to date has got our President all kinds of poiltical capital....
I will say this much to your post...
Back when I had more of a "life"...children, work, etc.,,,I coudln't have told you the names of all of the SCOTUS judges, let alone know anything about them BEFORE they were appointed...
I dare say that a HUGH majority of America is in THAT place, more than ours.
We aren't on this thread, at this website casually....we are "INTO" this stuff...and I have the time and inclination now, that I didn't at one time...
SO>..I am disappointed about Miers....but I am getting MORE disappointed in seeing the fangs come out on people that formerly at least tried to give Dubya the benefit of the doubt...
I am on the fence, re: Miers....but I think WE and the talk show hosts, the pundits et al, need to remember that there are people out in the real America that don't see this as a betrayal...so, in the end, they may appreciate what she does more than anyone, especially if she adjudicates the way that President Bush says he is sure she will.
Has Mike Pence been on yet?
It's like that Lyle Lovett song, "If I Had a Boat." I wouldn't mind a boat.
Good luck and we'll miss you!
I sure agree with you on that point, McVeigh could have helped us in the fight against these terrorists home and abroad, and he was executed faster than most serial killers. He knew so much more than what came out in trial, and it is very frustrating to know what may have been buried with him.
I haven't had my Diet Dr. Pepper yet today. :-(
You are kidding right? The two of us are supposed to figure out how to get this jackass pick pulled? That's not our job friend. I have already done my part with generous donations and feet on the ground in both elections. I don't need to be lectured by you. Read this and get a friggin' clue already::
George W. Bush, it is supposed, has a secret.
It is not classified national security information. But whatever its substance, the President evidently found it so persuasive he decided to risk the Supreme Court on it.
The secret is when and how—if ever—a middle-aged Harriet Miers made the long philosophical journey all the way from being an Al Gore contributor to being a constitutionalist conservative of such unshakable conviction that she merits lifelong appointment to a sharply divided Supreme Court by a President who promised he would name justices in the mold of Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia.
Many voters supported Bush on the strength of this promise. So, did he keep it or break it when he named his former personal attorney and current White House counsel to replace Justice Sandra Day O’Connor?
The public record does not come close to demonstrating that Miers is a Scalia-Thomas constitutionalist. Some of it, in fact, points to the opposite conclusion.
In an October 4 press conference Bush said he picked Miers because of her philosophical constancy. “I know her well enough to be able to say that she’s not going to change; that 20 years from now she’ll be the same person, with the same philosophy that she is today,” he said.
But if Miers is now a committed constitutionalist, she was not one 17 years ago.
In early 1988, she contributed $1,000 to the Democratic presidential primary campaign of then-Sen. Al Gore. Later that year, five days before voters would decide whether then-Vice President George H.W. Bush or then-Massachusetts Gov. Michael Dukakis would be the next president, she contributed $1,000 to the Democratic National Committee.
The Supreme Court was a hot issue in that campaign, as the senior Bush branded Dukakis a “card-carrying member of the ACLU.” Dukakis said abortion was “one of the reasons why we don’t want George Bush and Dan Quayle appointing new justices to the Supreme Court.”
The very next year, according the Dallas Morning News, she made a $150 contribution to the Texans for Life Coalition.
But Miers’ 1988 investment in the DNC cannot be chalked up as a youthful indiscretion. She was an aspiring, 43-year-old Democratic politician who would soon be elected to the Dallas City Council. In her one term there, she definitely did not embrace fiscal conservatism, voting to endorse a 7% increase in property taxes.
It has been suggested that Miers’ effort as Texas Bar Association president to get the American Bar Association to hold a referendum on whether it should be neutral on abortion or pro-abortion is evidence that she will be a good justice. But Darrell Jordan, who preceded Miers as Texas Bar president, who supported ABA neutrality on abortion, and who, according to the New York Times, supports “abortion rights,” told the Times it is “unfair” to interpret Miers’s work for the referendum as an indication of her views on abortion. “I know Harriett as well as anyone could,” he said, “and I’d have a hard time telling you what her beliefs are on that subject.”
At his press conference, Bush was asked how he would convince conservatives that Miers is another Scalia or Thomas. “First, she is a woman of enormous accomplishment,” he said. “She understands the law. She’s got a keen mind. She will not legislate from the bench. I also remind them that I think it’s important to bring somebody from outside the judicial system, somebody that hasn’t been on the bench. And, therefore, there’s not a lot of opinions for people to look at.”
Some of these things could be said about Hillary Clinton--except, of course, that she would not legislate from the bench, a conclusion we can draw precisely because Clinton’s opinions are not a secret.
In the coming years, the Court is likely to decide fundamental questions about American society. The protection due to property rights, the sanctity of marriage, and the sanctity of life itself, will all be in the dock—perhaps, decisively, for the last time in generations. Even if John Roberts turns out to be as great a constitutionalist as William Rehnquist, the court will still need two more such justices--including whoever replaces O’Connor--just to muster a 5-4 majority that respects the Constitution as written.
If President Bush and Harriet Miers have solid evidence that she has become a Scalia-Thomas constitutionalist, they should make it public and defend it proudly in the Senate. Otherwise, conservative senators, who have their own duty to the Constitution and the future of our country, would be on solid ground asking the President to send up instead one of the many other excellent potential nominees, who does have a constitutionalist record and the gumption to defend it.
Terence Jeffrey is Editor of HUMAN EVENTS.
I love it! ROFLOL.
No not yet stay tuned.
I just forwarded this item to Mr. rK
LOLOLOL.
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.