Posted on 10/14/2005 12:38:54 PM PDT by Theodore R.
Who are you fooling? Stop attacking this man with intimidation. Of course you were trying to persuade (argue) by demonstrating that your opposition is ignorant--ignorant of how long it will take to tell if Miers is strongly conservative. You are wrong. You think it will take years instead of months. When sarcasm followed, you went ape. Your rudeness is getting worse by the post. I am a mathematician. Will you accuse me of difficulty with logic?
I believe that the WH had been preparing hard for probable SC vacancies...expecting ther'd have two soon..the vetting had been done, and W, because he has a decisive management style, had decided on his two nominees..
Let's say that at the last minute, the weekend before the nomination was announced..that person backed out. Here are three possible reasons why..
1. They did not want to go through the whole ungly confirmation and background process..
2. Something in their record came up at the last minute
3. They felt that Roberts would be a very hard act to follow, so they chose not to do so...
So, the WH felt that they had to stay on pace..they could NOT wait another few weeks to search out another name..so Miers stepped up to the plate..to fill the void..
Holy Crap!! Miers wrote that gibberish? That should be required reading for every one of her defenders. Maybe one of them can interpret what she said and explain it to us. LOL.
Addendum to post 122: Perhaps you did not understand that the sarcasm points up the fact that Miers is largely an unknown quantity (years away from knowing the outcome). The best we can do as Freepers who enjoy disquisiting about politics is to constrain the likely outcome as one constrains an unknown infinite series between known ones. The methodologies of those who are concerned about Miers have been far more effective on the whole than the "just trust him" approach precisely because they are logical.
People have been forced to make their best guesses about Miers based on extremely limited information. The fears are based on uncertainty, not certainty.
No, Phyllis spoke out immediately when the nomination was announced. She did not wait for George Will to give her the cue.
She is in my book.
She almost singlehandedly derailed the Equal Rights Amendment ... think of the playground that would have been for activist judges all these years.
She was named one of the 100 most important women of the 20th century by the Ladies' Home Journal.
Moderately interesting, indeed.
Well, feel free to elaborate. I am aware that Bush personally knows Miers much better than Reagan and Bush Sr. knew their nominees. Is that everything? If so, it's not enough.
It seems to me that my Schlafly quote just points out that good conservative presidents have, using their best judgment, selected bad SCOTUS nominees. Clearly, we should not rely on any Doctrine of Presidential Infallibility.
So, what would improve our odds at getting better nominees?
We Miers detractors have a solution: The president should pick a candidate whose personal excellence and conservative qualifications have been proven over many years by their public work. Scalia and Thomas were chosen this way, and they have mostly worked out well. Roberts was chosen this way. The method seems to give good results. Moreover, it has kept the conservative base involved, intact, and enthusiastic. By examining his record we could all see for ourselves why John Roberts so richly deserved the nomination. The more we researched him, the better he looked. His hearings just confirmed what we already knew, and the Democrats didn’t lay a hand on him. The process worked. When something works, don't fix it.
Bush tried another solution. He picked a candidate whose qualifications had been proven primarily to him personally. The base was excluded. The more we researched, the more we learned that there was nothing to be learned. While Miers might eventually make a fine justice, the uncertainties surrounding her nomination, and the way in which she was chosen, have (predictably) set the base at each other's throats. It is a political disaster. It may have consequences that will far outweigh any good that Miers could do on the court. The discredited Doctrine of Presidential Infallibility now looks even more flawed, yet it remains the pro-Miers camp's main talking point.
And yes, thanks, I do know that the choice is Bush's alone, that the Senate vote is the only vote that counts, and that Bush has no legal obligation to explain his choice to anyone.
The GOP are people.. People that vote... and those people elect RINOs mostly.. therefore the people those people are mostly RINOs..
(shining fingernails) shut up and take that.. d;-)~
Justshutupandtakeit(a freeper) specifies and postulates that if most of the republican party are RINOs then there is no such thing as RINOS..
WHAT A CONCEPT.!!!.. I agree.. A real republican just might be a MYTH...
Making those for a free republic, with a (R) by their name, not republicans at all but stealth democrats outraged by obscene large scale government largess and instead hope and vote for obscene small scale government largess.. He does have a point..
Unfortunately, he totally misjudged the reaction of his base who have seen so many other opportunities go awry in the past. This was our one chance to correct many of the social ills that afflict America -- often protected if not promoted by judges who are aggressively pressing their vision of America from the last federal bastion of Liberalism.
Schumer is behaving like a cornered animal because he knows he's in a fight for the survival of his ideas and his party. He won't be satisfied unless Bush nominates another ACLU General Counsel like Ginsburg, but he's content to let Republicans do his dirty work -- for now.
I am a strong Constitutionalist.
Republicans must run acommodating the electorate in the states which are to elect them. This means some will be more or less conservative in emphasis according to the electorate they are expected to represent. Giuliani would not get elected in Georgia nor Saxby Chambliss in NY. Both can be useful in national GOP politics.
You should not expect to approve of every Republican since they are not responsive to you but to those who elect them.
You have given nothing to refute merely gibs and attempts to insult. Neither are significant.
Lol what a funny sense of what "going ape" is I have treated all of you with kid gloves and barely unleashed scorn and ridicule merely a few luke warm gibes. There are bigger knock down drag outs in kindergarten.
Your mathematical abilities apparently give you no particular insight into these matters. And the arguments against Miers don't ADD up to anything. They sum to a big zero.
The poor schlep you feel should be defended has done nothing but attempt to insult me so spare your concern.
What is logical is to allow the constitutional process to work itself out. The Constitution gives the power of nomination to the President and the Senate must give its approval.
Thus, the power to do anything is in the hands of the Senate. You only have slightly more influence in this than you have over who will be the coach of the Chicago Bears.
And if you believe the opposition as seen around here or as exists among the most radical elements of the GOP has sufficient weight to change the minds of the Senators then I suggest you are wrong. The only opposition to her will come from the radical left wing of the RATs.
If you want to ally yourself with it don't expect many to believe you are conservative.
I have appreciated some of the things she has done but reserve the term to a higher application.
Harriet Miers may be a very nice lady. I just don't think she was the best possible choice (as we are being told she is). Granted she is already 60 years old, and may not be there for long, but who will be President when she retires?
You still haven't quite stumblend into coherency but keep trying you are almost there.
She is trying to create the impression that there is an identity there which there is not. Neither of those presidents had any personal knowledge of their candidates. It makes a gigantic difference. Sufficient to invalidate the point she tries to establish. Those Presidents relied upon the judgments of others not their own THAT was the problem. A problem that does not exist wrt Bush and Miers.
Thomas did not have the experience that Miers has and certainly had no overwhelmingly impressive vita which resulted in much criticism of the nomination including claims that the only reason he was nominated was because he was Black. Or that he could only get approved because the RATS would be afraid to defeat him being Black. This is the similiarity between Miers and Thomas which is most applicable.
How does this mechanism of approval by the base which you believe was bound to obtain work? Who speaks for this base?
The Antis? or the other 70% of the primer conservative site on the web?
There has been no infallibility claimed asking one to trust the President in no way implies he is infallible that is just silly but you are claiming the same infallibility for a base opinion which is so vague as to be undefinable.
The main talking point of the anti-Antis is to let the process go forward into the Hearings. Most of us believe Miers will show there is no problem. But I suspect there are some who won't be happy no matter what.
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.