Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

NRLC Statement on the Nomination of Harriet Miers to the U.S. Supreme Court
National Right to Life Committee ^ | 10/04/05 | Staff

Posted on 10/06/2005 7:59:11 PM PDT by nunya bidness

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-33 last
To: Howlin
I'm beginning to subscribe to the theory that he's having to do it because of OUR people too.

Popular sentiment among those who disagree with Miers' nomination is that the President is a coward. One even suggested the President was corrupt.

These are our people talking.

The RINOs in the Senate are responsible for this situation. If we had pulled the trigger back then, we'd have a clear field for getting a known conservative justice confirmed right now. Instead we have to entice the Democrats to filibuster Miers so we can put the pressure on the RINOs to vote for a rule change to end the filibuster on Presidential nominees, so that the next conservative nominee to the Supreme Court will have a chance at confirmation even if we don't get a 2/3 majority in the Senate next year.

21 posted on 10/06/2005 9:21:03 PM PDT by coconutt2000 (NO MORE PEACE FOR OIL!!! DOWN WITH TYRANTS, TERRORISTS, AND TIMIDCRATS!!!! (3-T's For World Peace))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: coconutt2000

You're a very smart person.


22 posted on 10/06/2005 9:40:18 PM PDT by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: flashbunny

That's some classic stuff. And a bit sobering.


23 posted on 10/06/2005 9:43:00 PM PDT by July 4th (A vacant lot cancelled out my vote for Bush.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: flashbunny

This is why I don't trust Bush on this. A person will do or say anything if they have even a shot in the dark at the Supreme Court. She could have been giving the President a bucket of "what would you like to hear" for the last few years knowing that this moment could arise. This is a mistake for the chance it is taking. Millions of lives depend on it.


24 posted on 10/06/2005 9:46:58 PM PDT by ALWAYSWELDING
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: coconutt2000
If we had pulled the trigger back then, we'd have a clear field for getting a known conservative justice confirmed right now.

If there were enough votes to push the "Nuclear Option" then we would have done it. We threatened to do it because all we could do was threaten.

Seeing the "Nuclear Option" fail would have been disastrous. You should be thankful a face saving out was found by 7 RINOs.

25 posted on 10/06/2005 10:04:51 PM PDT by Once-Ler ("Our only hope is that Congress will continue to do what is does best... nothing." John Roberts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Once-Ler

That is of course my point.


26 posted on 10/06/2005 10:09:17 PM PDT by coconutt2000 (NO MORE PEACE FOR OIL!!! DOWN WITH TYRANTS, TERRORISTS, AND TIMIDCRATS!!!! (3-T's For World Peace))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: flashbunny
White House press secretary Larry Speakes said she had told the president "she is personally opposed to abortion and that it was especially abhorent to her. She also feels the subject of the regulation of abortion is a legitimate subject for the legislative area."

Thank you for posting these articles. Can you tell me how you found them? Lexus/Nexus maybe?

I had no idea that Reagan had been utterly fooled. I had assumed few conservative female judges could be found in the 80's and Reagan chose the best he could.

The difference between Reagan and Dubya is Dubya can't be duped by advisors he trusts. He knows Miers well. It is also interesting to note that Reagan had only been in office for 6 months before having to pick O'Connor from a pool of far fewer credible women candidates. During the Oct 3rd debate Gore said "the next president is going to appoint three and maybe even four justices of the Supreme Court." Dubya has had a long time to decide on Miers.

Dubya made this choice a long time ago. It is suprising that it took almost 5 years before he got his first pick. Miers was carefully scutinized before her nomination was announced.

Dubya knows how Miers will vote. I trust Dubya wanted another conservative on the SCOTUS. I can't wait for the next court session.

27 posted on 10/06/2005 10:34:22 PM PDT by Once-Ler ("Our only hope is that Congress will continue to do what is does best... nothing." John Roberts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Once-Ler

The had been posted here yesterday. Not sure where they got them from, but assume it is lexis/nexis.

I'd really like to get a subscription there one day.


28 posted on 10/06/2005 10:37:51 PM PDT by flashbunny (Suggested New RNC Slogan: "The Republican Party: Who else you gonna vote for?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Howlin

I'm smarter. We don't need to draw a filibuster.

We can discredit the filibuster if Miers is confirmed by a combination of both pubbies and dimwits. The dimwits have been justifying the filibuster by claiming that the majority pubbies will just toe the party line and impose their 55 vote majority without any concern whatsoever of the minority viewpoint. If both pubbies and dimwits combine to confirm Miers, as they did with Roberts, the filibuster is entirely discredited, regardless of just how many votes give her the majortity nod.

All this turmoil works to our benefit.


29 posted on 10/06/2005 10:41:04 PM PDT by Kryptonite
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: coconutt2000
That is of course my point.

Well then we agree Friend, and forgive me for not recognizing it.

I think your tagline is marvelous.

NO MORE PEACE FOR OIL!!!
Funny and relevant.
30 posted on 10/06/2005 10:51:42 PM PDT by Once-Ler ("Our only hope is that Congress will continue to do what is does best... nothing." John Roberts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: ALWAYSWELDING
This is why I don't trust Bush on this. A person will do or say anything if they have even a shot in the dark at the Supreme Court. She could have been giving the President a bucket of "what would you like to hear" for the last few years knowing that this moment could arise. This is a mistake for the chance it is taking. Millions of lives depend on it.

Didja vote for Bush? Didja trust him when you did? And now you don't? Then let me ask you this...if you were the president and you had to go to war in the Senate over a SCOTUS nominee, would you do it with the GOP senators that are there now? McCain, Collins, Graham, Snow, Chaffee, etc. That's why Bush didn't pick a "known" entity with a clear papertrail. It could have very well been a losing proposition.

This woman will be a fine Associate Justice. And those complaining right now are more interested in winning a fight with the Democrats than getting "strict constructionists" on the court. Unfortunately, with the bunch we have in the Senate there's little guarantee of winning any fight. Bush knows this and that's why he's chosen this path.

These morons would do well to realize the president is not the enemy. The Democrats are and right now these fools are doing the Democrats' dirty work.

31 posted on 10/06/2005 10:51:46 PM PDT by blake6900 (YOUR AD HERE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: blake6900
"These morons would do well to realize the president is not the enemy. The Democrats are and right now these fools are doing the Democrats' dirty work.

Just because I don't agree with some of my Pub friends on this (like yourself) doesn't mean we are "morons".

I see those who are siding with the President on this as cut from the same cloth as the compromising 14 in the Senate. Those of us who are opposed to the Pres. taking chances with this nomination are cut from the cloth of Scalia and Thomas. We don't compromise. We fight the good fight.

Another point that everyone seems to gloss over in their "moderate, compromising spirit" these past few days is the damage that The President has done to the organizations and Justices that have been unabashedly speaking out these last 35-40 years. What has been their message for all these years? Constitutional conservatives should and could be on the Supreme Court. Well they just got the answer with the last two appointments. "If your a constructionist, a conservative, you'd better keep your mouth shut or your not eligible for the highest court in the land.

This is going to change the outspoken constructionist of the past into a quiet, hide in the shadows individual in the future. When that happens, it will become more unaccepted by the day to even be a constructionist much less talk about it.

32 posted on 10/07/2005 5:16:49 PM PDT by ALWAYSWELDING
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: ALWAYSWELDING
Just because I don't agree with some of my Pub friends on this (like yourself) doesn't mean we are "morons".

I didn't call you a moron. Go back and reread what I wrote. I'm referring to a handful of self-absorbed, self-righteous, self-appointed leaders of conservative Republicans--like Ann Coulter, Bill Kristol, Pat Buchanan, et.al.--who, because the president didn't come worship at their high-priestess alter of importance, have decided to divide the party while Democrats sit back and watch the self-destruction. This is the same crap Pat Buchanan pulled in 1992 that got us eight years of Bill Clinton. BTW he's the same "moron" who ran against Bush as a Reform Party candidate.

Bill Kristol has never really been a "friend" of this administration since he was a McCain guy in 2000. He's railed against Bush's handling of the Iraq war--among other things--and wasn't even a supporter of it in the first place. Now he shows up on the Today Show to badmouth the president's pick and it never dawns on him that the last time he was on that show was the last time he badmouthed the president. Imagine that. Too bad he hasn't...or, hmmm, perhaps he has.

It seems to me that what's going on here is a power grab for control of the GOP. It's just started earlier than usual. Bush is out in two and half years and the ultra-conservatives are moving to the forefront. This nomination was simply the vehicle in which to do so. But the problem with ultra-conservatives is they don't realize their agenda is in many ways just as distasteful to centrist Americans as the ultra-liberal agenda is. I'm not saying centrist Americans are correct in that belief, only that that belief exists, primarily due to the MSM constanting spinning against that agenda.

Look, Republicans always seem to get into this mode of p!ssing on each other and losing focus on who the real enemy is. Now they're doing it again. Meanwhile the Democrats are content to sit idly by and watch the fun.

I don't agree with you on this issue but I didn't call you a moron. I did however refer to the people pushing this as morons and will continue to. My point is this: it serves no useful purpose for the GOP to air its' laundry in public. However, there is a reason why some individuals have chosen to do so and it would behoove you and others to ask yourselves, "Why?" I'm thinking there's more to it than simply wanting a well-established, in-your face conservative nominee crammed down the throats of the senate Democrats. Particularly since the end result may very well be getting a not-so-well-established, not-so-in-your-face, but-still-a-very conservative nominee actually get confirmed and seated on the bench.

Think about it. Sometimes the truth is in what isn't said. As far as I'm concerned this is a shell game on the part of these "morons".

33 posted on 10/09/2005 9:12:37 AM PDT by blake6900 (YOUR AD HERE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-33 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson