Posted on 10/05/2005 5:00:30 PM PDT by pabianice
Dear Friend,
On Monday, we learned that the President nominated White House Counsel Harriet Miers--a long-time adviser and Bush loyalist--to replace Sandra Day O'Connor on the United States Supreme Court.
Ms. Miers's record is little known so far, because she's largely served behind the scenes. What leaps out is her loyalty to President Bush beginning with his years as Governor of Texas. We know nothing about her loyalty to the rule of law
and the Constitution, or her ability to do the job of Associate Justice on the Supreme Court.
It's clear that Mr. Bush is fond of her work: he's appointed her to nearly every government position she's ever had. And apparently she likes her boss, having told a former Bush speechwriter that the "[P]resident was the most brilliant man she had ever met."
But many other staunch supporters of the President are alarmed by his nomination, citing a lack of experience and substance. Very few, it seems, are comfortable with the current case for Ms. Miers's confirmation.
The Senate needs more information if we are to do our job of reviewing and voting on such an important nomination, as required by the Constitution. We cannot advise in this process--much less consent--if President Bush refuses to disclose the very information he relied on in his decision to nominate Ms. Miers. I've called on President Bush to release any memoranda and files relating to Ms. Miers--and give the American people the same ability he had to consider her qualifications.
A decision of this magnitude cannot be made simply on his say-so.
From now on, your participation will be critical. As the process moves forward, all of us need to stand fast in our demand for the caliber of information needed for any Supreme Court nominee.
Let's work together to see that any replacement for Justice Sandra Day O'Connor meets the impressive standard she set.
Please keep in touch with me at TedKennedy.com, and thank you for your commitment.
Sincerely,
Senator Edward M. Kennedy
The skipper of the SS-Oldsmobile has no place judging anyone for anything.
That's like the town drunk speaking out against the Mayor...
Isn't it time somebody examined Lard Ass's suitability???
Blah, blah, blah.
Are you talking to me, Teddy?
DISCLAIMER: This photograph is FAKE BUT ACCURATE.
Somebody call 911. I have just laughed myself to death.
The um er uh um er Seniah Senatah from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts votes nay on this uh uh er uh nominee as she can swim.
Mmm, I like that. Says so much in so few words.
In a real and just world, this pig-faced sack-of-sh!t felon wouldn't even be allowed a vote in a general election. And he gets to sit on the Judiciary Committee?
lol
Oh yeah, and one other thing Teddy. Are you even allowed to use the word "loyalty"? I'm surprised you haven't been struck by lightning when uttering it.
Heh. You a veddy bad man.
Makes you just want to puke.
If it wasnt for family money he couldnt hold down a job cleaning porta potties.
Just getting starting on the "Swimmer" but gotta watch my blood pressure.
Republicans who try to undermine the Miers nomination better understand that they are attacking a pro-life born again Christian. We stick together, and you are either with us or you are with Ted Kennedy.
A brilliant presentation!
I know SCOTUS confirmations were much different back when O'Connor was nominated, but I think it would be fascinating to read what Swimmer said about O'Connor was first put up by President Reagan. Or if there is any quote in the interim 20 years were he was "impressed" with her.
Maybe we can find some of his praise of her "impressive standards" that she set during 2000 Bush v. Gore.
Send this to his office. Let' see how he responds.
> The skipper of the SS-Oldsmobile has no place judging anyone for anything.
Good one, little buddy.
He's my "Teddy Bare".
OMG, you're killing me! I can't stop laughing. I have to donate based on this post alone.
Agreed, send it back to him! Since he seems to consider you a "Dear Friend", and all, I'm sure he'd like it! What are friends for? </:-)
We must examine TeddyK's suitability to examine Miers suitability.
Miers only needs 51 votes, although in the event of a filibuster I'd like to see her nomination pulled and have Brown or Owen submitted. THEN we'd be on good footing to get one of the preferred candidates in AND to go nuclear. Unfortunatel, the Dems aren't THAT stupid.
....and then vote against her no matter what!
At least Otis was likeable.
Gotta make sure she doesn't have any skeletons in her car, er, closet.
How about Ted Kennedy's buoyancy.
Since term limits are apparantly out of the question, we need Senators to face a national up/down vote on their performance every 10 years. Up, he can run for another term; down and he starts packing his bags to get out during the next election cycle. How fair is it of Massatwoschitz voters to foist a murder and an Marxist traitor on the rest of the country for 30 or 40+ years? (Or West Virginia and Sheets/Rockefeller, New York and Shumer/Clinton, California and Boxer/Feinswine, Washington and Murray/Can'tdo... you get the picture).
Yes, those that have objections are aligned with Ted Kennedy. I've encountered this attitude before. In the Democrat Party. Shut up, support the Partyline, or else. This explains why the "red state" Dem Senators are too afraid to do the right thing and have kept the filibuster active as an option and, in part, why "stealth" candidacies are pushed on Republicans. Yet you advocate this same stifling of opinion? From my vantage point this rigid approach drove people from the Democrat party and is one reason they are now the minority Party.
Republicans who try to undermine the Miers nomination better understand that they are attacking a pro-life born again Christian.
People infering she is a lesbian because she is single are attacking her. People raising reasonable arguments that others were more qualified, and that we do not have much of anything to base her aproach to the Constitution on, are not "attacking Ms. Miers. They are respectfully dissenting, which is a Constitutional right, a right of this board, and a right of any member of the Conservative movement or Republican Party.
Kennedy's statements mean nothing to me. Being attacked for dissent and told I am in alliance with Kennedy for that dissent does mean soemthing to me, and I don't respect those engaging in it anymore than I respect those who would label someone "Bushbot".
And, for the record, few are operating with intent of undermining her nomination. If I were undermining her position, for example, I would not be here. I would be in direct communication with washington 24/7. The extent of my communication to them was one return E-Mail declining to support Miers based on what I know of her to date. I am nor more of George Will's frame of mind to push for withdrawal of the nomination, than I am of the mind I should be silent in my opinion of this choice.
He has to "closely examine" it because, anytime after splashing Chivas on the cornflakes at breakfast, he's seeing double.
No offense, I think you're a bit confused. It takes only a majority of 51 of 100 senators to be confirmed. That's the way it'd always been until the Dems moved the goalposts to 60 with the filibuster. The nuclear option needed only a bare majority to implement, also, which is why it could have even been considered. It would have removed the filibuster option for judicial nominees, thus making sure the Dems had nothing to obstruct with.
Part of the reason Myers was even nominated was the Gang of 14 deal. If we didn't have that, we'd already be nuclear and Bush could nominate whoever he wanted. As it is, half of the Dem caucus voted for Roberts and they would be all over the place claiming that as justification for blocking most of the preferred candidates for the current vacancy.
bttt
Very good.
Has teddy ever seen a skirt he didn't want to "closely examine" ?
Ted Kennedy: "We as a great nation uh....ahh..... ah...um....duh.... must determine whether this nominee can rival the great sterling standard in character I have displayed ever since my undergraduate and law school days. In particular, before voting on this nominee we must know how often she cheated in college and law school, whether she has left any innocent victims to drown in her car while engaging in obstruction of justice about it, how often she likes to slander her opponents, and whether she knows her Dasch-hole from a hole in the wall. Until the President provides information that will allow the Senate to answer these important questions, we are unable to properly consider this nomination."
WE Must Closely Examine Harriett Miers' Suitability" -- Ted Kennedy
WEEEEEL, I think I like Bill Bennetts answer I heard on FoxNews the other night. (Paraphrasing)"Ted Kennedy needs to keep his mouth shut. Anyone who drowns a young woman has no ability to judge other people".
I completely concur that opposition to the Miers nomination varies in intensity. Coulter wrote, "Bush may as well appoint his chauffeur head of NASA as put Miers on the Supreme Court." Now, that is an attack. Others may be more tame in their objections, but there is always a low level "attack", even when they say someone else is "more qualified".
But no matter the level of vitriol in their opposition, what do they think they will accomplish? Do they think the President is going to say, "Oh, you mean there is someone else you wanted? OK, I'll withdraw the nomination." That will not happen, period.
Do they think that enough conservative Senators will rebel so that the nomination will be defeated? The possibility is remote, but I'll tell you what would happen then. The next nominee wouldn't be Brown or Luttig. It would be a liberal like Callahan, and there would be plenty of Democrats who would ensure confirmation.
Miers is a conservative. This has become plain since she was nominated. Conservatives should not oppose the nomination of conservatives to the court. There are enough liberals who will do that.
Pat Buchanon has no credibility, certainly, he has demanded the President's impeachment.
Farah makes Pat Buchanon look sane.
I associate myself with none of these people.
Nor do I associate myself with the George Will's of the world. I call into question his judgment, and have for some time especially in regard to the war. I certainly think this man went well over the line in his shot at the President in his column. I disagree with this nomination, but I don't withdraw my support for the President because of this disagreement.
but there is always a low level "attack", even when they say someone else is "more qualified".
Then here you and I would separate because I find this an undeniable truth, not an attack, and is why I have remarked so and I object to its classification as such. There is no intent of harm implicit in this statement. I will grant it is something that could be debated, but it is not an attack. Just as it is not an attack to state her understanding and approach to the Constitution is in doubt. If not in doubt, the president would not be requesting the base trust him.
I disagree that the President would retaliate with a left candidate if Miers were withdrawn, but no, it is not my intention she withdraw. I actually think after committing himself to her as he has, it would be more damaging not to shoulder this through. I have no intent to damage the President and will not call for withdrawal.
My intent is to, however, be free to state I am disappointed in this selection. Instead, I have been met with opposition to voicing this dissent. And I would advance the seeming relunctance of many to allow this disappointment to be voiced has resulted in stronger voiced dissent. Calling people names or telling them to be quiet does nothing but put anyone's back up, no one appreciates that lack of respect especially when they are respectful in dissent and have been very loyal to this President. Likewise, I understand why those content in the nomination would have their back up by some of the inane statements that have been made from the other end.
It is leading to hurt feelings, more disappointment, and a building anger. Not at this president, but between members of the movement. Debate within the movement can be healthy. Namecalling is not.
As to her being a conservative, she is apparently conservative on some known issues. But you've been on this board long enough to know even conservatives have disagreements. She may be conservative, ex. on abortion and 2A, but that doesn't follow she is straight down the line conservative in all respects. I've never known anyone to be. Nor has conservatism ever been a criteria on my part. I'm not interested in a "yes" vote. Never have been. I'm more interested in her thoughts on the law and Constitution, and I've scant answers to these questions at this time.
But, I do think she'll be confirmed and I don't think she'll intentionally set out to mimic Souter or O'Connor. But that doesn't follow I must believe the president made the best decision for the Court.
It may not be fair to call Meirs supporters Bush Bots (and goodness knows that supporting Bush has never been more important), but we strongly reserve the right to challenge his positions and this nomination.
OTOH, the Left thinks this has divided us because we are openly disagreeing. They do this at their peril.
Unlike their "my way or the highway" hate/guilt driven thought, they don't understand that conservatives can disagree (at times STRENUOUSLY) and still respect each other and try, in each individual's way, to adhere to what we believe to be a true value system. I am deeply concerned about what Roberts will do on the Assisted Suicide issue. If he says that Fed trumps State's rights then tear up the 10th amendment (and the 4th).
Miers is a strange and troubling decision by Bush. It doesn't mean I won't support my President in every way I can.
I should withdraw my characterization of your objection to Miers as an attack. While I don't agree with it, your expression of opposition has been reasonable. Still, I think we agree that the divisive attacks on Miers by the likes of Will, Buchanan, Farah, and Coulter can have no positive affect.
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.