Here sweety, allow me.
Posted on 10/09/2005 10:12:30 PM PDT by West Coast Conservative
This whole "wait for the hearings" is an attempt to silence those who are opposed to this. The people that say "im waiting for the hearings" act as if they are keeping an open mind-- but again, some of them are the most active critics of those who DARE to post any information that might put a negative light on this nomination. Besides, the hearings wont tell us much, on issues that might come before the court she will invoke the ginsburg rule. Even if she could answer, that doesnt mean that she would drift leftward within 5-10 years. We simply don't know-- and that is the problem.
On top of that, the other information we've uncovered-- the raising of property taxes, donations to gore and the DNC (for dukakis) in 88, the support for affirmative action at the dallas fire department, the creation of a women's studies (read: feminist) lecture series in the late 90s at SMU....all of these things paint a picture. To me-- that picture does not resemble one of a conservative.
Voting to confirm an ideologically unacceptable jurist a decade ago does not justify voting to confirm an unqualified nominee this time around.
Furthermore, Ginsburg and Breyer are the the liberals' babies.
If a judge from the radical "crit studies" school of law is what the rabid leftists want to bequeath to future generations as their patrimony-and by all accounts, it is-then so be it.
But I refuse to willingly hang an albatross around my neck, simply because it might be the politically expedient thing to do.
At this time I think it more likely these Senators are simply placating the concerns of the base by acting sceptical or withholding an affirmative response. My opinion of the politicians in D.C., specifically in the Senate, is that low. I've seen nothing so far that would convince me she won't be confirmed if she does moderately well in the show trial.
Far more likely the President would have her withdraw, and that I don't find too likely either.
But, to answer your question, yes. I think Luttig could be confirmed if she were voted down or withdrawn for the simple reason these cowards don't want the ire fixated on this selection turned on them. Nor, do the red state Dems want the same focus that took down Daschle. I imagine they are scared witless at the idea of this response magnified on them and what it could mean if they voted "no" with their party.
Whoops, I meant "that doesnt mean that she WOULDNT drift leftward in 5-10"
Just wondering.
If she were charged with being a qualified nominee for the Supreme Court, there wouldn't be sufficient evidence to survive a motion for directed verdict by the defense.
As this Wash Times article points out, the Senate Judiciary committee CANNOT squelch a Supreme Court nominee; they can merely send the nomination to a vote in the full Senate with a negative recommendation.
Secondly, the idea that ALL of the dozens of more qualified, more committed conservatives have disqualifying issues is truly laughable. I won't bother to list the 2-3 dozen names- we all know who they are.
We as conservatives need to have this out once-and-for-all. I don't care what else is going on in Washington, or the world at large. We have to shame the democrats and the RINO senators into realizing that it's absurd for truly out-of-the-mainstream liberals like RBG to be approved 96-3, but *more* mainstream Republicans cannot even count on *Republican* senators to vote for them.
How will the democrats look if they obstruct a true conservative nomination, when Ginsburg's approval is thrown in their faces? To top it off, Ginsburg replaced a conservative Justice (White). How will the RINOs look when it is pointed out that they or their predecessors voted for Ginsburg, but not Luttig, Owens, etc.?
If we had a battle royale over a conservative nominee, we could have counted on picking up more Senate seats in states that vote conservatively. Democrat obstructionism could have been a huge issue in states like Montana, West Virginia, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, etc. I don't think Miers approval will do a damn thing.
RINOs be damned. I know the critters caucas with us, but I often think it would be healthier to just excomminucate the bastages.
LOL
I'm getting tired of hearing she's not qualified.
She is pro-life, pro-gun, pro-constitution. She packs heat. Might be the first or only one on the court. Sounds good to me. What else are the idiots looking for?
Sorry, but George Will, World Net Daily, and GOP elitist snobs who reside in Manhattan and the inner-circles of the Washington cocktail party clique are not really conservatives.
Real conservatives - yes, the grass-roots who believed and trusted Bush when he said he will appoint strict constructionists to the bench and has delivered - support Meirs.
Why not? Because she has no judicial experience, like Rehnquist?
She isn't a conservative. She isn't a Republican. She isn't a "constructionist." She doesn't really seem to be an evangelical. She's just a "stealth liberal" who got on GW's good side by "hero worshipping" Bush at least as much as the Bush cadre does here. Not good enough. Not even close.
Here sweety, allow me.
Either McConnell or Luttig would be confirmed. Of the two, McConnell would have a slightly easier hearing. McConnell would receive at least as many votes as Roberts.
And McConnell is only 50. Miers is entering her dotage.
Time to call our Senators.
Unlike Rehnquist.
The woman has become the first woman to do this, the first woman to accomplish that, she has a wealth of real-world experience in the courtroom and has argued hundreds of cases. Meirs is one of the top 100 lawyers in the nation and in the top 40 for female lawyers. She's got experience, OK?
Do you think being White House Legal Counsel is some paper-pushing job that usually employs college interns or something? White House Legal Counsel is a very important position.
You and the Meirs-bashers KNOW DAMN WELL that the stinkin' GOP Senate RINOs doesn't have the balls to unleash the nuke option had Bush nominated a Luttig or Brown. All this talk about "mother of all battles" from conservatives sounded like Hussein circa 1990 before the first Gulf War. Use your head man! Bush is playing the Senate RINOs and Dims for the chumps they are.
Time will tell.
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.