Posted on 10/27/2005 4:22:26 AM PDT by notes2005
WASHINGTON — At least two Republican senators are poised to call on the White House to withdraw the nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court, a highly placed Republican Senate staffer told The New York Sun.
The news came amid stepped-up criticism of Ms. Miers by conservative groups and Senator Schumer. The conservatives said they were upset by the emergence yesterday of two speeches in which Ms. Miers said that self-determination should guide decisions involving religion and the law, and in which she cited conservative bêtes noires Janet Reno and Justice Ginsburg as female role models. Mr. Schumer, the Democrat of New York who serves on the Judiciary Committee, complained of the nominee’s delay in completing a follow-up questionnaire from the committee.
Several Republican senators have expressed concerns about Ms. Miers, but none has formally come out against her. An open defection by even one conservative senator would signal that Ms.Miers would have trouble making it through the Senate, conservative activists said.
“I think this will increase pressure on a withdrawal and lead to more pointed questions. I think with the documents that came out today and the speeches she gave will likely lead to at least a couple senators calling for a withdrawal.The things she said are just outrageous,” said the staffer, who spoke on condition of anonymity. “This is the proof of all our deepest fears.”
(Excerpt) Read more at daily.nysun.com ...
Is that Hillary I hear beginning to sing...
If Schumer doesnt like her, Can she be all bad?
How convenient that these two GOP senators seem to have no names.
Wondering if those speaking against Meiers were as vocal in their opposition of Ginsburg and Breyer.
Broken link? Who are these 2 GOP Senators or do they only speak to "Conservative activists"?
Friday. 4:45 PM.
The fat lady's getting warmed up...
Why do I get the idea that at least one of them was a dwarf?
I like Harriet Miers - Harry Reid
I support the President, but will say this -- she has the DANGEDEST array of proponents and opponents!
Pro: Dr. Dobson, Harry Reid, Jay Sekulow, Hugh Hewitt...
Con: Ann Coulter, Chuck Schumer, Mona Charen, Robert Bork...
We live in Bizzaroland.
Dan
Tomorrow is the day. If she is to be withdrawn the usual Friday escape will be used. If not withdrawn, Bush will have allowed his arrogance to overrule his good sense.
I don't know about arrogance - but this is why one shouldn't appoint a family friend/wife's school chum to such a position; makes it even more difficult to request that the person undergo the humiliation of being withdrawn. And the friendship/crony aspect of course must have contributed to the White House overlooking her potential problems.
If she is withdrawn what will happend do you think after all the "Conservative activist" champaign corks are popped and the party has subsided?
This cartoon appears to be more at home in my liberal newspaper not a conservative web site like Free Republic.
Good bad or indifferent, Miers is in the future, the war is here and now. I see no conservative joining the anti-war group, I do see the possibility of them being quiet. That will be the undoing of Bush.
The 3 Republican Senators who voted against Ginsburg are no longer in the Senate, but 3 of the 9 that voted against Breyer are still there (Burns, Lugar, Murkowski).
The Senate voted 87 to 9 to confirm Stephen Breyer in 1994;
the 9 NAYS: Burns (R-MT),Coats (R-IN),Coverdell (R-GA),Helms (R-NC),Lott (R-MS),Lugar (R-IN),Murkowski (R-AK),Nickles (R-OK),Smith (R-NH)
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=103&session=2&vote=00242
The Senate voted 96 to 3 to confirm Ruth Bader Ginsburg in 1993;
the 3 NAYS: Helms (R-NC),Nickles (R-OK),Smith (R-NH)
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=103&session=1&vote=00232
David Souter turned out to be one of the most liberal judges on the Supreme Court and only Democrats voted against him:
The Senate voted 90 to 9 to confirm David Souter in 1990, all 9 opponents were democrats: Adams (D-WA), Akaka (D-HI), Bradley (D-NJ), Burdick (D-ND), Cranston (D-CA), Kennedy (D-MA), Kerry (D-MA), Lautenberg (D-NJ), Mikulski (D-MD)
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=101&session=2&vote=00259
Since the two senators are probably Sam Brownback and Tom Coburn, I would guess "no" as neither one was a Senator in 1993 and 1994. The same holds true for other likely "no" announcers like Jeff Sessions or Jon Kyl.
' She added, "The ongoing debate continues surrounding the attempt to once again criminalize abortions or to once and for all guarantee the freedom of the individual women's [sic] right to decide for herself whether she will have an abortion." '
Like I've been saying, I'm glad Bush wasn't my first choice in 2000. I backed a guy who's primary campaign will one day lead to revolutionary changes: School Choice and the Fair Tax. Rush made fun of us back then. As much as I like Limbaugh, I AX Rush now: who was right about Bush in the 2000 Primary? Us or you? I believe that Gore was extremely vulnerble.
And Bush's 2000 campaign was wimpy. He almost lost when his opponent was caught with that insane canoe ride, the 'no controlling legal authority' defense, the 'carbon-emitting units' accusation against human beings, the claim that trees are more important than human beings, etc. Gore could have been beaten by any man on the street with an ounce of courage. But we needed a 'winner' back in 2000. This next primary, let's not blow it on another moderate weinie like Bush, OK?
Well my question was what did you think would happen after Miers is withdrawn? I expected you to tell me that he'd nominate a "real conservative" and all will be wonderful. The fact that you mentioned the war and that Bush needs all the friends he can get tells me you understand pragmatism. I agree that no conservative will join the anti-war group but becoming sunshine patriots and being silent is perhaps just as bad. As for the "undoing of Bush" -- I don't think matters one bit to Bush. This only matters to Democrats. Bush's priority since 9/11 has always been the war - he made that promise to all of us. As for Miers, well sure, she may indeed be withdrawn. What then is the strategy for "conservative activists" who claim that this nominiation is THE time to force Bush back onto the "right track"?
I don't agree with you regarding 2000. I am learning that compassionate conservatism can run into a lot of money. :>)
If Miers is withdrawn, there will be no conservative judge appointed or confirmed. Too late now for a fight. Bush ruined that chance.
OK, who's your "real conservative" candidate? Let's talk about it, instead of saying Bush (who did win twice) was wimpy. I may be with you but I think you underestimate just how many fightened blue staters there are out there (legal and illegal) who run away from typical conservative "tough guy talk".
Then the best you are hoping for is what?
Are you serious, or was that just a humorous diss? Inn case it's the former, she's a longtime conservative commentator, an attorney, Jewish, very smart and articulate; she more than held her own on TV against ugly libs like Al Hunt for years.
That list could go on and on; the other list is shorter.
Dan
Ugh, not seeing Hunt -- that's a good thing. Like not having a weeklong dose of diarrhea.
8^P
D
History happened quickly -- it's over for Miers...
Next time we show them. If we don't have a movement conservative we sit home.
Guess they can hold that call.
"OK, who's your "real conservative" candidate?"
Back in 2000, I was what Rush called a 'Keyester'. Very cute, snotty joke on his part. And yet, the top two exciting ideas were led by Keyes: school choice and the fair tax.
As for 2008, I don't want Jeb, I don't want someone who hasn't mentioned borders at the last minute, but someone who mentioned borders PRIOR to the fall of 2005-- not some chess player but someone who takes borders seriously. I want someone who vows to VETO any bill that funds "piss christ" art work--NOT some sicko who consistently INCREASES "piss christ" funding. I want someone who will appoint Judge Roy Moore to the Supreme Court. Who will that be? It sure as heck isn't going to be Jeb or pro-abortion Condi.
'Let's talk about it, instead of saying Bush (who did win twice) was wimpy. I may be with you but I think you underestimate just how many fightened blue staters there are out there (legal and illegal) who run away from typical conservative "tough guy talk".'
When Al Gore had a dam drained DURING A DROUGHT for a photo-op, that should have been the END of his campaign. He left himself wide open. It was not emphasized. And he almost won! AFTER THAT!
As for tough guy talk, have you ever met anyone on the street who was glad tax money funded 'piss christ'? I met only one high school kid who said we should pay for it. Just one, out of more than a hundred.
"If we don't have a movement conservative we sit home"
I understand your disgust. I'm with you on that. And there is hope. There's something people need to be aware of:
The real battle is in the primary. The election phase is just running off the fumes of the primary. Rush was kingmaker in 2000. And he failed us. I hate to say that because I do think Rush is doing a lot more good than harm in the big picture. But in that particular battle, America lost in that primary fight. If not Keyes, maybe Forbes. Maybe it could have been Ashcroft even, I suppose. It was basicly whoever Rush pulled for.
And the real battle of the primary is going on right now. We can't afford to let people ramrod some closet wimpy moderate down our throats. No more Doles. No more Bushies. We need someone with some gonads.
Well you did tell me who you didn't want which leaves...?
And your person with gonads which can win is...?
Yeah, a person like...?
Back in 2000 I picked Keyes and preferred Forbes over Bush as well. I'm hoping Hannity will run, but he doesn't want it. I'm glad George Allen and Newt spoke out about immigration, but they're half a year too late, IMHO. And as for Newt, it was on his watch when the NEA was saved. Anyone who doesn't take 'piss christ' seriously truly doesn't understand the pro-life movement, does he? And I think that's the real reason why Bush chose Miers.
OK, so who's your choice?
You want Hannity to run for President???????????????
I will go with someone I can think will win. This means I will have to compromise because over the years I have learned that you make no forward progress living and dying just for principle. To bastardize, Patton's words, you let the other poor bastards die for principle (aka Nadarites, Greenies, Sheehans). If this means a RINO has to run againt Hillary, Osama Obama or whoever the Democrats run I will have to hold my nose and vote for that RINO because I know that by losing to the Dems we will get FURTHER from the goals of a "movement Conservative", a "real Conservative" or whatever term makes us feel warm and fuzzy right now. If it's Hillary against Condi, I vote Condi. If it's Hillary against McInsane, I vote McInsane. However, if we manage to nominate Allen or any of the others that people talk about here, I'll vote for them too. But winning IS everything as "the long march" begins with small steps. As we saw with 8 years of Clinton so much damage can be done when we just take our toys and go home. I think the "stay at home" threat is childish and pure ego masturbation. Like I said, let the other dumb bast***s lose for principle. You don't win a War on Terror by defeating one lousy country and you don't win a Conservative movement with just one elected President.
Frankly, I think he'd make a far better president than radio host. Choosing Hannity for president is not because of his radio style. It has to do with other factors. For example: just imagine how eager Boortz, Savage, and possibly even Rush would be to get him out of radio and into the White House. =] That might help convince them to rally behind him, a very solid block.
Name recognition. He has a lot of connections, more than even the Bush family, I would think. He's already on the equivalent of a campaign trail when he goes on his barnstorming tour. We know where he stands on borders. We know where he stands on ALL issues, rock solid. He works very very hard examining legal briefs, etc. He knows who to talk to when it comes to leading the troops [definitely not Hackworth, for example]. He has looks which would sway some of the female vote.
We know he prefers outstanding justices for the Supremes for example.
"This means I will have to compromise"
So which issue do conservatives lose on?
"I think the "stay at home" threat is childish and pure ego masturbation."
It's a confused reaction when guys like Bush win the primary. You can kick the confused, betrayed conservatives all you want, but you can't expect them to betray what they stand for. I'll stand by them before the moderate weenies any day of the week. We're in the New Media Revolution, for goodness sake.
You got to win an election. Like it or not it's a two party system. There really is only one or two choices. As for compromise, who knows? We compromise every day on all sorts of things. But the biggest question is, who do you think a person like you will have more influence on? A Democrat or a Republican.
Here you challenge me to name a candidate and tell me we need to compromise on issues, yet you can't name a single issue we lose on and need to compromise on?
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.