Half of Senate Republicans doubt Miers

Washington Times ^ | October 10, 2005 | Charles Hurt

[Cobra64]

I'm tired of being pressured to show support for this mediocre nominee.

And some folks are experts in law? Why is she "mediocre?" Some folks need to be accountable for their statements. Some folks can't figure out how to read a financial statement; or a report card.

An' others need to figger owt how two punch a hang-a-dinging chad. *rolling eyes with sarcasm*

[DJ MacWoW]

the idea that ALL of the dozens of more qualified, more committed conservatives have disqualifying issues is truly laughable.

Two things to think about.

The NY Times was going to "investigate" how Roberts got 2 blonde children from South America to adopt. Freepers went into high gear and raised a stink and it was dropped. HOWEVER, how many people want to put their families through that kind of torture?

Also, the Clintons taught the politics of personal destruction very well. A smear doesn't need to be true just spread by a very willing MSM.

[Soul Seeker]

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.

Good catch.

[Do not dub me shapka broham]

I don't live in Manhattan, I live in Brooklyn.

And you know what?

This nomination still sucks from across the Bridge.

[TAdams8591]

"James Dobson -- founder of Colorado-based Focus on the Family and an influential social conservative -- endorsed Miss Miers after a conversation with Bush political strategist Karl Rove. Such conversations have raised concerns that the White House is making assurances as to how Miss Miers would rule on certain cases -- a situation that many think would compromise her independence if she was confirmed to the court."

Good point. That's what happens when you nominate someone with no paper trail.

[Flux Capacitor]

----What does Bush do if she doesn't get confirmed?----

Since there will still be a seat to fill, he could start by nominating somebody who's actually qualified to sit on the court. (Pretty radical notion, G.W., I know, like using your veto or removing your lips from Bill Clinton's ass, but think about it....)

-Dan

[William Terrell]

It's not like the president has only one shot at a SC nomination. If Miers is rejected, the senate would have a hard political time rejecting the next. The Sc can't just stay there with an even number of justices letting Roberts "vote" twice.

[acapesket]

WHAT is going to fall first? The sky or all of you chicken littles?
Hold your fire, wait for the hearings and then look for McQueeg's fine hand behind this deluge of hysteria!

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

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.

Luttig would not have been confirmed per the reasons I already outlined in my previous posts. Honestly, you people are on meth or something, thinking that Senate RINOs would magically come to their senses and join Braveheart Bush into battle when they were too chicken-s*it to fight for Bolton and Bush's lower judges.

[writer33]

Vetoing pork barrel bills would just be devastating, dnbmsb. It would be terrible. :)

[Do not dub me shapka broham]

It would be a nice change of pace, wouldn't it?

[gortklattu]

One member called people "Miers apologists," like she had done something wrong and we were making excuses for her. I have trouble believing histrionics such as that which are now being displayed concerning this nominee, on a "conservative" forum, no less.

Oh, we're Kool-ade drinkers too.

I don't mind debate, but this name-calling is something for liberals, not for freepers.

[DJ MacWoW]

A Westlaw romp through Harriet Miers' record

[writer33]

Dan,

That's far too easy. Now stop being practical, sir. It's utterly ridiculous.

:)

[Stellar Dendrite]

LMFAO!!!!!!!!!!!

[gortklattu]

...she's an idiot.

OK, more name-calling.....noted.

[Do not dub me shapka broham]

The horror!

:0)

[TAdams8591]

Interesting that President Bush likely did not pick Janice Rogers Brown because he couldn't count on Republican Senators to vote for her.

Obviously, he did not expect a similar problem or one of even greater proportions with Ms. Miers.

The irony.

[writer33]

I'm in shock and awe that you even suggest that. How dare you!

:)

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

This nomination still sucks from across the Bridge.

Figures. No facts or objective thought on why Meirs shouldn't have been chosen. You just hate her, that's all.

Well that's fine, but once Bush makes a decision you know he's going to stick with it until the very end. So sit and stew in your juices, Bush doesn't care and neither do the majority of conservatives who support the nomination of Meirs.