Skip to comments.
The Long Game: Voting against Harriet Miers might come back to haunt Republican senators.
Weekly Standard ^
| 10/24/5
| John Hinderaker
Posted on 10/24/2005 9:28:23 AM PDT by Crackingham
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-55 next last
To: Crackingham
The biggest concern of many on the right is that Miers may not be a "real" conservative. Many Republicans, stung by the examples of Souter, Stevens... How does Souter feel knowing dems don't accept him and we can't stand him?
2
posted on
10/24/2005 9:33:10 AM PDT
by
GOPJ
(Protest a democrat -- light your hair on fire -- and the MSM still won't take your picture.)
To: Crackingham
If a paper trail firmly identifying a nominee as an "originalist," or whatever, is a prerequisite for nomination, then we will never have anyone but judges and law professors as Supreme Court justices. Is this a backhanded attempt to call some anti-Miers elitist? We know that's just not true.
3
posted on
10/24/2005 9:36:56 AM PDT
by
TheDon
(The Democratic Party is the party of TREASON!)
To: GOPJ
Maybe he likes being a maverick, like john mcvain.
4
posted on
10/24/2005 9:38:02 AM PDT
by
flashbunny
(What is more important: Loyalty to principles, or loyalty to personalities?)
To: Crackingham
If, on balance, the Senator can state reasons for not voting for Miers after she has been fairly heard then I would not hold it against them. What cheeses me off is the vitriolic seeming lockstep mentality of sheep blindly following the media sound bite lynching.
Asking for with drawl is a cop out, no matter what her hearing will bring out some issues that a more mainstream candidate might not.
5
posted on
10/24/2005 9:38:43 AM PDT
by
Mike Darancette
(Mesocons for Rice '08)
To: GOPJ
How does Souter feel knowing dems don't accept him and we can't stand him?I hope he is tortured by unspeakable anguish, but I doubt it.
6
posted on
10/24/2005 9:40:11 AM PDT
by
NeoCaveman
(In DC, Pork is what's for dinner)
To: Crackingham
An interesting summation of the weeks events.
To: Crackingham
Until now, the judicial confirmation process has never been seen as one where senators can reject a qualified nominee on the ground that he or she isn't the nominee the senators wanted, or the one the senators consider the best. Straw man.
The "not the best" arguments are critical of the decision to nominate, and not given as a reason to vote against.
The arguments to vote against are based on "not qualified", not "qualified but not the best".
The author has made up a position to argue against.
8
posted on
10/24/2005 9:46:10 AM PDT
by
JohnnyZ
("She was appointed by a conservative. That ought to have been enough for us." -- NotBrilliant)
To: Crackingham
"If a paper trail firmly identifying a nominee as an "originalist," or whatever, is a prerequisite for nomination, then we will never have anyone but judges and law professors as Supreme Court justices."
Well, at least someone "gets" it.
To: Crackingham
But, once a handful of Republican senators have used such a rationale to vote against a Republican nominee, it requires little imagination to foresee how quickly the Democrats will use that precedent to justify their own opposition to essentially any Republican nominee, no matter how well-qualified or mainstream. Calling Robert Bork to the white courtesy phone...
It's dangerously naive to think that the Democrats will be stopped from taking any action that they believe is in their benefit due to lack of reasonable justification.
To: Crackingham
From this perspective, Miers is deemed unacceptable because she has not spent years wrestling with, and writing about, Constitutional issues She hasn't spent 5 minutes, let alone years.
This is the woman who denied ever discussing landmark SC cases with anyone.
11
posted on
10/24/2005 9:48:33 AM PDT
by
JohnnyZ
("She was appointed by a conservative. That ought to have been enough for us." -- NotBrilliant)
To: Mike Darancette
If, on balance, the Senator can state reasons for not voting for Miers after she has been fairly heard then I would not hold it against them.
The process should play out and the Senators need to get on record with an up/down vote.... Nothing wrong with that or them voting not to confirm a nominee. That way it comes full circle and no one is pushed beyond their authority within the process.
12
posted on
10/24/2005 9:49:10 AM PDT
by
deport
To: Reactionary
But, once a handful of Republican senators have used such a rationale to vote against a Republican nominee, it requires little imagination to foresee how quickly the Democrats will use that precedent to justify their own opposition to essentially any Republican nominee, no matter how well-qualified or mainstream. I had not realized that the RATS needed an excuse for filibustering well qualified mainstream Republican candidates. They have been doing that already.
13
posted on
10/24/2005 9:50:44 AM PDT
by
jackbenimble
(Import the third world, become the third world)
But many conservative critics of Harriet Miers come perilously close to urging that standard In other words, no one has advocated that.
John Hinderaker -- moron.
14
posted on
10/24/2005 9:51:04 AM PDT
by
JohnnyZ
("She was appointed by a conservative. That ought to have been enough for us." -- NotBrilliant)
To: Crackingham
Voting AGAINST Miers should be the easiest decision of any Senator's life.
There simply is not enough known about her to grant her a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court. What is known about her is not impressive and some is even discouraging.
If the founders wanted the president to have free reign appointing justices to SCOTUS, they would not have designed the ADVISE AND CONSENT role of the Senate.
15
posted on
10/24/2005 9:52:03 AM PDT
by
msnimje
To: Reactionary
"If a paper trail firmly identifying a nominee as an "originalist," or whatever, is a prerequisite for nomination, then we will never have anyone but judges and law professors as Supreme Court justices."
Well, at least someone "gets" it.
Walter E Williams is an economist and author. However, he has written more on the constitution and bill of rights than harriet miers ever dreamed of writing.
The quoted sentence is rather silly. All you need is evidence that the person is a strong, known originalist - it doesn't necessarily have to be as a judge or law professor. But it certainly can't be a complete blank slate like Miers.
16
posted on
10/24/2005 9:59:16 AM PDT
by
flashbunny
(What is more important: Loyalty to principles, or loyalty to personalities?)
To: msnimje
Advise and Consent.
It doesn't mean to get to know that person. Only means the question "Is the appointee qualified"
To: TheDon
If a paper trail firmly identifying a nominee as an "originalist," or whatever, is a prerequisite for nomination, then we will never have anyone but judges and law professors as Supreme Court justices.
Is this a backhanded attempt to call some anti-Miers elitist? We know that's just not true. hardly backhanded. It flat out states the rationale for those who make the charge. In fact, it is patently self evident that, if the formulation is true, then those that hold to this position are absolutely being elitists, in every since of the word.
As to what "we know," I don't think you and I would agree on who "we" are, nor on what anyone can be said to know at this point in the debate. Anyone who claims that they have all the information they'll ever need and refuse to look at any other evidence are just a bit too arrogant and ignorant for my tastes.
Helluva combination.
18
posted on
10/24/2005 10:06:56 AM PDT
by
Phsstpok
(There are lies, damned lies, statistics and presentation graphics, in descending order of truth)
To: Phsstpok
Oops! I forgot something. < /sarcasm >
19
posted on
10/24/2005 10:23:19 AM PDT
by
TheDon
(The Democratic Party is the party of TREASON!)
To: JohnnyZ
I haven't heard anyone (paticularly a senator) articulate why Mier's is "not qualified" so I would say the author is dead on in his analysis of the opposition.
20
posted on
10/24/2005 10:38:10 AM PDT
by
Smogger
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-55 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson