Posted on 10/22/2005 4:11:56 AM PDT by governsleastgovernsbest
Though not giving it much more than 'rumor' treatment, on Fox & Friends Weekend it was just reported that the White House is reaching out to GOP senators as to their recommendations for 'Plan B' in the event Miers is withdrawn.
One of the F&F hosts clarifed that according to the information Fox has received, it is not WH aides who are doing the outreach directly, but conservative surrogates.
Ask Bush. He knows her.
"Yep. Just the other day in the Oval Office, I said 'Harriet, what's 11,217 x 8,543.21, and without batting an eyelash, Harriet said: "95,829,186.6, Mr. President. And did I mention you are the greatest President ever, deserving of great respect?"
"The fact is that if you put them all in a giant gymnasium, their collective IQs would barely be half that of regular people like GWB or Condoleeza Rice. And that annoys them because they know it."
lol. agree.
So Coulter calls her a cleaning lady, and Ingram debases her for working with Meal on Wheels, and then many wonder why my side complains of elitism?
Self-analysis is not a strong suit at FR, apparently.
No doubt some have. But you should not let that prevent you from understanding the arguments advanced by those who haven't. There are plenty of posters on the pro-Miers side who throw insults - doesn't mean they never have a good argument or relevant fact.
What particularly disturbs me is the smear that John Fund has been peddling- that Harriet Miers law firm was paid a lot of money because Miers bribed Ben Barnes not to spill the beans on GWB's National Guard service.
I'd have to re-read what he said to be certain of the suggestion I will now make. Fund was not saying the connection was in fact true. He was saying that allegations of the connection can be raised by DEMs, thereby clouding the confirmation process and tarring GWB with yet another falsehood.
Do you dislike articles and/or pundits that discuss the Plame case, e.g. Novak's? After all, he does remind us that some in the media are making allegations. The fact that a person reports the allegation does not mean the person subscribes to it.
am also offended by the conlawyers abandonment of the long-held conservative principle that the president should be deferred to for judicial nominations.
I'm coming to the mind that the past-held deference may have been ill-advised. We'd be better off today if the GOP had objected to Ginsberg on the principle that she is a judicial activist. She might have gotten through confirmation, but the GOP would be on record as for judicial restraint, and in favor of SCOTUS justices having a traditional approach, see Scalia, Thomas and Rhenquist.
Yes, they have the First Amendment right to oppose her, but not the right to dictate who the president will or will not nominate.
He did nominate who he wanted. Nobody stood in the way of that. What you want to happen is less objection, but tough noogies on that wish.
If she does poorly in the hearings, she can be voted down.
The hearings will iluminate her intellectual ability and not much else. The hearings are designed, following the Ginsberg rule, to illuminate as little as possible where the nominee stands on the traditional-activist spectrum.
If the president does give in to the pressure or if Miers requests that her name be withdrawn, I hope he nominates Gonzales precisely because he is not one of their chosen ones.
That wish is an emotional one, and is driven by the emotion of spite. A reasonable, good hearted person would wish thatteh President would pick a nominee that will be a good Justice, regardless of any hard feelings about the past.
LOL. Meals on Wheels is being used as one reason why she's qualified to be on SCOTUS.
And you don't see a problem with that?
"News Flash: The middle class white male has been a second class citizen for decades!!"
Oh please.
Ad humorum?
Dictionary definition of 'dictate': to issue commands or orders.
Various people, WH staffers included, might be trying to 'influence' the decision, but no one has denied W's ultimate authority to make it.
She's a Christian. That's another reason put forth by the President.
I see a huge problem with stating that as a REASON for someone to sit as a Judge on SCOTUS.
There is supposed to be no religious litmus test.
So why are conservatives now promoting religion as a REASON to put someone on the highest court of the land?
And you don't see a problem with that?
Not when one is picking through her garbage cans with a toilet brush looking for every jot and tittle and blowing it up into a Constitutional Amendment.
I think volunteer work shows something about a person, yes.
LOL - which, come to think of it, is kind of a pun in itself ;-)
The supposed "non-elitist" conservatives are looking at every tittle and jot as REASONS to support her nomination. The "elitists" are merely exposing the tittles and jots put forward by the President and the "non-elitists" in their promotion of a person who is NOT BEST QUALIFIED due to lack of constitutional law experience/knowledge, and a myriad of other legitimate concerns about her sitting on SCOTUS.
It was a broad policy agreed to by many people in the private organization she worked in 1992. Again where has she been in favor of govt. mandated affirmative action. She has worked in many different fields since then
I'll go back to the day she was nominated, President Bush and she stated that she was an originalist and would not make law from the bench. Now it is your perogative to not trust the President, I will trust him, simple as that.
Also do you seriously think GW Bush wants as his legacy the same mistake his father did and appoint another souter?
That's BUSH's reason, not the governments reason.
The religious proscription was designed to avoid the scenario where every nominee HAD to be of a certain religion...ala England and the Anglican Church, not to prevent religion from being a consideration.
If Bush came right out and said, I think I'm going to pick a Christian woman to fill this spot, that's perfectly within his right.
In July of 2003, President George W. Bush nominated Brown for a seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Several civil rights groups nationally due to her conservative values have challenged this appointment.
The post regularly decides challenges to administrative policy and is considered a steppingstone to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Very telling.
Conservatives have always held heretofore that religion should NOT be a basis for qualification.
In Miers, they're now turning that on its head to gather support from conservatives.
Just because someone calls themself a Christian, or a lawyer, does not make them a qualified judge. There are all kinds of Christians, and lawyers.....and many are democrats and/or liberals.
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.