Posted on 10/06/2005 6:13:22 AM PDT by ejdrapes
I'm also telling that to the Bushbots.
You are getting, in Ms Miers...
An Evangelical Christian.
A very succesful business woman.
The Presidents Lawyer.
I will lay off the "elitism" charge though I do think is is abundantly true.
Ms Miers deserves a fair hearing.
I'm on the fence with Miers; I simply don't have a read of how she will conduct herself.
As for Lott, he's probably hoping for more evidence that she will be a "like-for-like" replacement.
You seem to not understand the relationship of a sitting 2nd term President to the constituency that elected him.
Her nomination was floated as a possibility and nobody thought it was a "joke."
Then you accept the premise she was put on the short list by, well, by the president and herself because of the consultation and approval of Sen. Reid and Sen. Leahy?
She's a highly accomplished attorney
There are thousands of lawyers in this country with similar levels of accomplishment within their specialized career paths. We're talking about a Judgeship that is on the most powerful Court in the world. There is an entirely higher plain of accomplishment that has been achieved by hundreds of lawyers and judges in this country, who when compared to Miers make them better qualified and more apt to build a true legacy of Constructionist interpretation.
They should get over it.
This is not about any pundits or individuals particular favorite candidate for the court, President Bush and Harriet Miers failed to give ANY candidate a fair chance. It stinks of cronyism, insularity, and quite possibly sycophantic behaviors by Miers to pursue her career goals by any means necessary.
...I truly hope she has been talked into throwing herself to the lions to further the 2nd nominees chances to pass confirmation.
It is elitism to look down one's nose, as the blonde bimbo does, at a "third tier" Southern law school (SMU). What the hell has Ann Coulter ever done with her law degree, except try to pass herself off as a "constitutional expert"?
This thing is now being driven by the egos of a bunch of beltway snobs who are showing themselves for the opportunists they are.
Lott is, among other things, toying with the President. But that's fine.
It's wrong to jump on the president when no one can guarantee how even these "safe" picks will actually vote, it's wrong to attack this woman's qualifications, and yes it's wrong to overreact and attack your president because he doesn't pick someone from your list. And I find it especially wrong after mnost everyone bought John Roberts hook line and sinker. My conservative money is on Harriet over beltway lawyer John.
We do agree on this and I've said also, elsewhere, that I'm willing to be wrong about Miers and I'm eager to be suprised. I just hate that we even have to use the word "hope" when it comes to the president's selection.
There are many names (we all know the list) that no one and I mean NO ONE would have to "hope" about.
But I guess Frum is saying her inclinations and instincts are soft left. .. I'd like to see more proof of that, myself.
So you like complete surprises. Enjoy the mushroom, hope it doesn't give you judicial food poisoning.
I've read some of the things that Coulter has been quoted as saying lately and I heard her the other day on a talk show (not the Hewitt show) during my lunch break and I thought she was out of bounds, in her critique.
This thing is now being driven by the egos of a bunch of beltway snobs who are showing themselves for the opportunists they are.
I must respectfully disagree on this point, Frum and others speak for a lot of conservatives on the ground that are equally miffed.
"crybaby."
Good response.
Now...as for the substance, this is a pretty devastating article. It articulates something that conservatives I think knew but hadn't quite articulated: she's all about relationship, team, and process. And no one knows anything about her actually ideology. The reason for that is probably because she doesn't have one.
That's not a fault.
In fact, in order to run a large law firm, it would be damn near necessity.
That is why she has been successful in what she has done.
But...to move her onto SCOTUS with no knowledge of her ideology, seems to ...well...I'm not sure that the campaign promise is obviously fulfilled with this. But, as I have said before, it would be pretty naive for us to take that campaign promise literally.
They take the middle road, which is invariably whatever some other court has held (or, I should say, what I tell them that court has held...LOL)...completely unable to think for themselves.
I guarantee you that Scalia knows how he is going to rule on a case once he reads the issue presented. Miers, OTOH, looks like another swing vote.
Good arguments, seriously.
Well, thanks. It will be interesting to see how this all plays out.
So you want to elevate someone to Supreme Court who supports racial preferences?
Perhaps you're right about this. But therein lies my breaking point. President Reagan swung for the fences with Robert Bork and unfortunately the ball was snagged from leaving the ball park.
In 1987, there was no internet, no talk radio, no real conservative grass roots movement for Reagan to rely on to fight back. As this National Review article from 1987 points out, the left in 1987 was already well armed for a fight: http://www.nationalreview.com/flashback/flashback200510050806.asp
Where we stand in 2005, there's a calvary of support ready to go to battle for Luttig, Brown, Owen or McConnell. This only adds (I think) to the dismay felt by myself and I assume others...
"Michael Brown managed 150 disasters including four simultaneous hurricane relief efforts in Florida last year before he ran into a totally broken Louisiana emergency management system."
Not to mention that the entire municipality (Mayor in paricular) and the Governor is a joke.
Brown is getting a really bad rap and I can't wait for his book (new doubt soon) will open some eyes. Also, watch how the current admiral will get his comeuppance with the rampant incompetence and corruption of the NO establishment over the next few months.
It will be a sight to marvel!
Yes...Scalia is talented in his own way.
Yet, there is much to recommend in people who don't make snap decisions.
More deliberative decision makers are often much more skilled at convincing others to see things their way.
People who make quick decisions, even if they make the right decisions, can be terrible at explaining things to others .
"More deliberative" decision makers often can't make a decision because they don't understand (a) the impact of the decision and (b) the reasons behind the decision. They can't even convince themselves, let alone someone else.
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.