Conservatives' Conundrum: Miers Was Not Given a Chance

The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review ^ | October 30, 2005 | William McKenzie [The Dallas Morning News]

[mosquitobite]

These people (here at FR) that wanted her to have a hearing are, imho, totally clueless. From her writings and from the chatter from the meetings with Senators she wasn't doing well. Did we REALLY want her to be the face of conservatism? The "best" Bush could find??

It would have set us back another 10 or more years. Senators would have had to choose between their electorate or the President. What a HORRIBLE place to put them with elections in 2006!!! STUPID!

Stupid stupid stupid to argue that "she should have had a hearing." We did not filibuster, we did not hold her up in committee. She WITHDREW. The left and the crybabies here need to GET OVER IT. Wait for Bush to nominate a strong constitutionalist and we'll all rally together. If you don't want to rally for a originalist, what the hell are you doing here?

[LibertarianInExile]

No kidding. The MSM revels in its hypocrisy--they'd be supporting the left in a Senate-rules-based-procedural-game that subverts the Constitution to prevent the appointment process from moving forward, but God forbid that conservatives actually exercise their constitutional right to free speech (all we did, btw) and the Prez pulls the plug as is HIS constitutional prerogative.

[sinkspur]

I got a new picture of the most conservative people in this situation, and it wasn't pretty.

Condescension, ridicule, and arrogance characterized the most strident of those in the Coulter/Frum/Will/Kristol axis.

They did the conservative movement no good with their nastiness.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

Nasty? Yes. Not any worse than a lot of things I have heard or seen in the media, or even here on Free Republic with the resident troll evolutionists attacking the Christians. (I'm saying that as an atheist.)

Uncalled for? Maybe. Ms. Meirs withdrew herself. We will see who is nominated.

Justice O'Connor is not someone I admire one bit and replacing her with another just like her, or worse, is serious business to get nasty about. I really don't give a damn about the polite sensibilities of the Washington social set, they are the problem.

True? A lot of people who might agree with me want a lot of the same nominees I do. A lot of us worked to get George Bush elected. I have supported him since his first presidential primary and sent him money from California to get him into the Texas capital. Now, I want what I worked, voted and paid for damn it!

[LibertarianInExile]

"Do you truly not understand what the left is trying to do with their false moral-equivalency argument here?"

It's not that what you think are "willing idiots" don't understand what the left is trying to do. It's they ARE the left. You think these folks playing the 'same as a filibuster card here care if a conservative is nominated? Hardly. They wanted another O'Connor and they're bitter as hell they didn't get her.

[bray]

She is gone, now leave her alone. Talk about beating a dead horse!

Pray for W and Our Troops

[Miss Marple]

The discourse about Miers was never mean spirited and never directed at her personally or her personal values.

Oh, please. You have to have been under a rock for the last few weeks. Hear are some of the "non-personal" comments from the pundits:

Cleaning lady
Paper pusher
Legal secretary
Church lady
Graduate of a second tier school

Posters on FR chimed in with charges of brown-noser, lesbian, old maid, groupie, etc.

I do not appreciate revisionist history from the left, and I sure as heck I will not tolerate it from the right.

[savedbygrace]

Some might be. I don't think all are.

[Cboldt]

These same cage rattlers demanded an up or down vote on the President's judicial nominees.
Suddenly they changed their mind on Meiers?
Smells like hypocrisy to me.

Cry Me a River, Hugh
Posted by: Dale Franks on Thursday, October 27, 2005

As far as the up-or-down vote thing goes, one notes that the problem conservatives had with the up-or-down vote requirement was that the Democrats were denying Senate votes on judicial nominees who had already been vetted, and reported out of the Judiciary Committee. At no point in time has the issue been that every presidential nominee, no matter how unqualified, must be accepted without dissent from the moment of nomination. Nor has the issue ever been that the president's supporters must remain silent to allow any nominee, regardless of qualifications, to complete the nomination process. The whole point of the argument was that qualified nominees, whose nominations were before the Senate, were refused a vote by senators of the opposing party. Conflating that with pundits who have nothing whatsoever to do with the nomination of confirmation process, and who merely express their opinions about the quality of a nominee, is either intentionally intellectually dishonest, or a sign of an sad inability to reason properly.

http://www.qando.net/details.aspx?Entry=2821

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

She is gone, now leave her alone. Talk about beating a dead horse!

I'm not the one who had objections to how Ms. Meirs was handled by the “conservatives.” But, I sure as hell want what I votedand worked for - - more Scalia and Thomas jurists on the court. O'Connor is a joke...

[bray]

So what, you think your the only one who worked for President George W Bush? Just raise the discussion level and get it out of the gutter.

Pray for W and Our Troops

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

I never said a word about Meirs until she withdrew...

Do a search...

[Miss Marple]

Well, good for you. However, that doesn't mean that there were plenty of people, both in the punditry and FR, who did make personal comments.

[Do not dub me shapka broham]

Harriet

~snip~

Miers

~snip~

delenda

~snip~

est

~snip~

[LibertarianInExile]

I think most are. Most of the folks who are posting that 'this shows hypocrisy' stuff have also clearly stated they aren't conservatives, dislike conservatives, and won't support conservative nominees in the future. As if there was ever any doubt about that anyway.

[savedbygrace]

You might be right. BTW, I wasn't suggesting any of them are conservatives. Some might be "moderates", whatever that means.

[Mr. Mojo]

No more whining about liberals tarring-and-feathering Robert Bork in his 1987 Supreme Court confirmation hearing.

In light of Bork's views on the 2nd Amendment I couldn't be happier about his tarrring-and-feathering.

[JCEccles]

Moderate = Specter, Chaffee, Snowe, and Collins.

"Jumpin' Jim" Jeffords was a moderate too, but he finally tired of the pretense and formally became a Democrat.

[jec41]

Murder is a moral decision against the law.



The law is sometimes fuzzy for me concerning murder. The law hung people at the Salem witch trial. I would call it murder but they called it justice. My Great Grandfather fought for the south and therefore was a murderer. My Grandfather served in WWI and came home a hero. My father fought in WWII and came home a hero. I served in Vietnam and came home a murderer. My son has served in two wars and is now in Iraq. he was a hero in the first two but some now consider him to be a murderer for Iraq. The jury is still out on Iraq but if we win he will be a hero and if we lose he will be a murderer. It is amazing to me that for a good part of my life abortion was not a issue and those that practiced did so in secret because it was condemned severely by society. Most considered it amoral and murder. I know I did and still do. However the occurrence was controlled by a peer society. Then came those who wanted laws passed to ban abortion and those who would object to those laws. The fight continued to the SC and one morning I woke up and to my surprise the SC had determine that it was legal, it is not murder and it is a right. Now millions have been killed because of people abiding by the law. The lesson for me is that those who seek to impose their will on others using the law some times defeat their own objective if the court does not rule in their favor. I maintain that if not challenged in court abortion would have remained a rare practice because of peer review.. The court ruling made it a everyday accepted practice. Abortion may be morally offensive to me but under the law it is not murder. I simply maintain that the court should have never considered a position. I would hope that Roe vs Wade would simply be abolished. Making abortion in all cases illegal and subject to trial for murder is not achievable regardless of ones wishes.

[LibertarianInExile]

"I do not appreciate revisionist history from the left, and I sure as heck I will not tolerate it from the right."

But you don't mind generating that revisionist history, either. You and the rest of Miers' merry moonbots are trotting all over hither and yon claiming that the opposition to Miers was purely about insults and that it's ruined the GOP and broken Bush, as if any of that is true. Heck, you people were even the first on JimRob's unity thread to flamebait about the whole thing. You simply don't care if the party dies or a conservative nominee loses, because the only purpose of the party to you is to maintain power. To y'all, better to shoot the horse that brought ya rather than let anyone else ride it.

Too bad the truth will out. Y'all can't headfake conservatives any more. We're wise to you. You are trying your best to neuter the GOP along with your wing of it. But ain't it a shame when you RINOs lose hard like this, to the point your silly Clintonista tricks don't fly any more?