You know, he is just another one of those closet liberal "talking heads" who have neve penned anything in support of Conservative values!
They are all phonies and traitors!
We should put our trust in Harriet instead! < /_sarcasm>
Posted on 10/19/2005 11:42:02 PM PDT by freespirited
WASHINGTON -- George W. Bush's agents have convinced conservative Republican senators who were heartsick over his nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court that they must support her to save his presidency. But that does not guarantee her confirmation. Ahead are hearings of unspeakable ugliness that can be prevented only if Democratic senators exercise unaccustomed restraint.
Will the Judiciary Committee Democrats insist on putting under oath two Texas judges who are alleged to have guaranteed during a conference call of Christian conservatives that Miers would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade? Will the Democrats dig into Miers's alleged interference nine years ago as Texas Lottery Commission chairman intended to save then Gov. Bush from political embarrassment?
Officials charged with winning Miers's confirmation told me neither of these issues is troublesome, but in fact they suggest incompetence and neglect by the White House. To permit a conference call with scores of participants hearing close associates of the nominee predict her vote on abortion is incompetent. To nominate somebody implicated in a state lottery dispute in the past without carefully considering the consequences goes beyond incompetence to arrogant neglect.
President Bush was not originally prepared for the negative reaction from the Republican base when he nominated White House Counsel Miers, his longtime personal attorney. Former Republican National Chairman Ed Gillespie, leading the confirmation campaign, over two weeks convinced skeptics that Miers is conservative enough. Whatever her qualifications, dubious Republican senators after hearing from Gillespie decided they could not deny his chosen court nominee to a president on the ropes. Bush has solidified Republican support not because he is strong but because he looks weak.
Miers remains so shaky, however, that she may not be able to survive confirmation hearings that go beyond sparring over how much of her judicial philosophy she will reveal. That is why John Fund's column in Monday's Wall Street Journal chilled the president's backers. He reported a conference call with religious conservatives Oct. 3, the day the Miers nomination was announced, that indicated a lack of White House control over the process.
Fund wrote that Texas Supreme Court Justice Nathan Hecht and U.S. District Judge Ed Kinkeade, on the conference call, flatly predicted that their friend Miers would rule against Roe v. Wade. Although the two jurists deny that, I checked with two sources on the conference call who confirmed Fund's version. That raises the possibility of bringing two judges under oath before the Senate committee to grill them on what they said and what Miers told them.
The possibility of the Lottery Commission controversy being the subject of confirmation hearings is even more daunting for the White House. The story now is only being printed in alternative publications, such as the Dallas Observer of Oct. 13. These reports recalled the lawsuit brought by Lawrence Littwin alleging that Chairman Miers fired him as the Lottery Commission's executive director because he had uncovered corruption involving Gtech, the lottery management firm.
Littwin's federal suit claimed Miers protected Gtech because its lobbyist, former Lt. Gov. Ben Barnes, as Texas House Speaker had pushed Bush ahead of other applicants for the Texas Air National Guard during the Vietnam War. Democrat Barnes had been silent until a 1999 deposition by him said he had pushed young Bush to the head of the line. Barnes, who received from Gtech $3 million a year and $23 million in separation pay, told me that the Bush Air National Guard story has "absolutely nothing" to do with his settlement. Littwin is silent under terms of a $300,000 settlement ending his suit. Former Texas Chief Justice John Hill, a member of the Lottery Commission at the time, told me: "There is no substance at all to these charges." Miers handled the case "with care and judiciousness," Hill added.
Whether Barnes and Littwin will be subpoenaed to rehash these charges is in the hands of Judiciary Chairman Arlen Specter. The White House saved him from defeat in the 2004 Pennsylvania Republican primary and did not try to keep him from becoming chairman this year. But nobody expects Specter to grant forbearance for the president's lawyer.
Why is Bush going to the mat over the mediocre Miers? Ego trumps logic.
Who in the heck is this know-nothing bob novak trying to fool? There's no way this nobody could have inside washington info!
It's on the Senators web pages and has been in the rags for crying out loud.
The Senators should be more concerned with saving their own necks. Future employment or higher political aspirations may be tied to what kind of judge Miers would become.
The Senators should be more concerned with saving their own necks. Future employment or higher political aspirations may be tied to what kind of judge Miers would become.
He is trying to FOOL the other pundit elitisits who have the HEADS in their BUTTS. Aand if you object to this nomination you are blackmailing the Republican party. The party has been LOYAL to te cause, and liostening to critics will cause your HAIR to fall out. If you UNAPPEASABLES would just go awy and shut up. The party can WIN without the likes of KOOKS like Buchannan and Limbaugh who don't pick the nominee the PRESIDENT does. Your arguments are illogical crap. Grow up and blow away you ignorant fools.
In the case of Bush, step in doo doo and then demand that your sidekicks wipe it off. Hmmm. Wonder if they will lower themselves.
You have been so convinced that you could influence this pick by making a lot of noise from day one.
You have totally ignored the fact that this President is head strong and will use his executive privilege and constitutional right to the fullest.
If she gets confirmed, we're not going to know by 2008 what kind of justice she is. Her true colors as a justice will start to show one way or the other once the new president comes in.
If she gets confirmed, we're not going to know by 2008 what kind of justice she is. Her true colors as a justice will start to show one way or the other once the new president comes in.
Oh puhleeze. We know exactly what kind of justice she is. There is no doubt. Open your eyes, she's a female justice.
Signed,
Far right, unappeasable, sexist extortionist.
/sarc
You know, he is just another one of those closet liberal "talking heads" who have neve penned anything in support of Conservative values!
They are all phonies and traitors!
We should put our trust in Harriet instead! < /_sarcasm>
"Well here you are on FR as of 2004. But you know 'Bush bots' eh?"
I bought a couple of PEG's books in years ago.
She won't be able to depend on me as a customer again.
Good luck writing for the RATS, PEG.
123 posted on 10/20/2005 2:32:05 AM EDT by A Citizen Reporter
LMAO.
Oh BTW, the only(whom you think) "omnipotent" person who you pictured, that has ever been elected to a public office, now works for the ACLU.
Miers is toast.
Fatally, Bush has made conservatism toast also, totally wiping out all that Reagan had done and setting our nation on a course of disaster as Bush's multiple failures will assure Hillary Clinton as president--the conservatives stay home in 2008.
Outstanding!
I will nominate you for your conservative drama queen antics, hereby named the "jellybean"(due to President Reagan's fondness of that candy).
Your competitors for the "jellybean" for 2005 are robert bork, george will, bill kristol, michelle malkin, phyllis schafley, cal thomas, david frum, ann coulter, paul weyrich, pat buchanan, and bob barr.
I support Bush. I am disappointed but support this nomination.
Bush's prior record on judicial nominations is not merely good. It is outstanding. So I wonder ... Why would he nominate a clearly mediocre Meirs?
I'll speculate: Bush's team reasons that Stevens is 85 and unlikely to make it to the end of Bush's term. How does that change the calculus of this whole controversy? I'll speculate again: Appoint Harrient Meirs, who Bush knows will be a reliable conservative vote; and husband political capital for what will be the greatest political battle of the last quarter-century.
The point is that there may be issues about which we are not fully aware that are having a practical and immediate impact on Bush's decision-making.
Hey! Where's my honey Laura Ingraham in that line-up? :)
I nominate you for using the most overused and trite expression (i.e. "drama queen") in an feeble attempt to intimidate anyone who does not wear a "I Heart Miers!" T-shirt.
I have never seen that expression overused so much as it has been during the last 3 weeks of the Miers fiasco. It really is pathetic.
But just to make you feel better, here is "Miers Card" for you:
"You are the greatest poster ever, and deserving of great respect!! Cool! Free Republic is blessed! You are the greatest!!!"
I'm saying that it sometimes takes several years for justices to assert their particular Constitutional approaches. If Miers is approved, I expect she will rule the way W. would like her to until he's out of office. At that point, her opinions may begin to evolve based on other Washington influences.
Hee! Funny that the folks who are saying they're taking a "wait and see" approach seem to be all ready to declare victory if she comes off well in the hearings. Well, so did Souter. Evaluating justices is a long-term proposition...before we see how Miers votes over several years (and especially, after W. gets out of office), we just won't really know.
Until then I'm neither eating nor serving crow in this debate. :)
There has been some discussion about comparing the current "Ginsberg Rule" hearings with hearings and their contents for previous nominees. I haven't studied any of the following, but it is a resource useful as a matter of comparison.
Nomination Hearings for: David H. Souter, Anthony M. Kennedy, William Hubbs Rehnquist (to CJ), Antonin Scalia, Sandra Day O'Connor, John Paul Stevens, William H. Rehnquist (Assoc.), & Lewis F. Powell, Jr.
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/senate/judiciary/scourt.html
I had another epiphany today, this one regarding the supposed hypocricy if GOP Senators don't vote to confirm Ms. Miers, when history shows us they voted for Ginsberg. First, the "vote for a cipher" issue has baggage all it's own, and represents "guessing," not deliberation, on the part of a Senator. That is bad, per se, as I described in my first ever vanity, "Uncertainty," the Nominee.
But what about the situation where a nominee's past inclination regarding judicial restrait, conformity with the Founder's vision of jurisprudence, strict constructionism, or traditionalism - whatever you may choose for a shorthand label - is clear? What if another Ginsberg appeard? And it hit me like a ton of bricks.
The GOP Senators have been derilict in their duty. They are not fighting for judicial restraint or a traditionalist court. If they were, they would ask questions that probe that, and failing to get clear answers, or knowing that the nominee is an advoccate of "living Constitution" jurisprudence, the ONLY principled action to to deny advise & consent.
The fact that the GOP Senators have shrugged off their duty in the past does not justify continuing that practice. If the GOP really advocates strict constructionists, then it provides advise & consent for those, and only those. They'll win some and they'll lose some, but they shoudl be voting with THAT principle in mind, instead of deference to the President.
Deference may be okay as a "tie breaker" if a Senator is fence sitting - but a GOP Senator, who holds the line for strict construction by a sitting Justice, would not cast an AYE vote for Ginsberg, etc.
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.