Posted on 10/07/2005 6:05:08 AM PDT by slowhand520
Conservatives can trust in Miers
By Newt Gingrich
Originally published October 7, 2005
WASHINGTON // Conservatives should feel confident with the selection of Harriet Miers to replace Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court for a simple reason: George W. Bush selected her. Much has been made in the press about conservative unhappiness with the White House on issues such as spending and immigration and most recently with the selection of Ms. Miers. However, while these tensions are not insignificant, the president has stayed remarkably true to conservative principles on every major decision he has made since winning the Republican primary.
He unabashedly ran as a conservative in the election and even selected Dick Cheney - a man of impeccable conservative credentials - as his vice president. Once elected, he assembled a Cabinet of conservatives, including Donald H. Rumsfeld, John Ashcroft and Condoleezza Rice. He proceeded to cut taxes as promised, and did it again in 2002.
After 9/11, President Bush resisted the prevailing wisdom in Washington that terrorism should be dealt with as a crime, instead treating the attacks as acts of war that required a military response. And after the 2004 election, Mr. Bush put himself front and center as an impassioned advocate of transforming Social Security into a system of personal accounts.
(Excerpt) Read more at baltimoresun.com ...
Good! bttt
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
Conservative Republicans (of which I am a proud member) have only two choices on the Meirs pick.
1) Accept the President't nomination gracefully and lobby for him to pick an unabashed conservative judge the next time around.
2) Behave like a hypocritical Democrat and try to stop the confirmation of the president's pick.
The fact is, the president picks, the Senate confirms. If the Republicans do not vote to confirm, they are acknowledging the Democrat's argument that it is OK to vote against a nominee strictly because you are unhappy with their political position.
Maybe they are making a principled statement that they don't believe she is a qualified candidate to serve in one of the most powerful offices in the government. That is how I would be voting. I don't care if she is against abortion. Compared to many of the other possible choices she is a legal light weight. She is nowhere near the top of her profession.
Bush has said that Scalia and Thomas are the standard of successful nominations. Out of two nominations P41 only named one such; even the sainted Ronald Reagan only named one out of three. Bush has surpassed his father by winning reelection to a second term. But now Bush has his second nomination to SCOTUS, and he doesn't know that he will have a third one. Bush knows that he will suffer in comparison with his father if neither Roberts nor Miers were to pan out like Thomas, and that he will have bragging rights if they both do.
And I think that that's the way to bet 'em.
It's infuriating that, with 55 Republican senators, Bush can't openly name a Scalia the way Reagan was able to - but that's the senators' fault, not Bush's. We can hope to improve the Senate in '06, even if we lose a RINO or two while picking up a couple of red-state senate seats.
What this train of thought is missing is a cogent explanation of why I should wager the staffing of the high court on some family's father-son dynamics. It may, in fact, be what I have to do, but given the depth of the constuctionist bench developed over the course of the last few decades, this is apologetics, pure and simple.
Actually, when I've, on occasion seen Newt on TV lately, I've found that he's been rather negative toward Bush.
....Conservatives should feel confident with the selection of Harriet Miers to replace Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court for a simple reason: George W. Bush selected her......
Read it again....
Conservatives should feel confident with the selection of Harriet Miers to replace Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court for a simple reason: George W. Bush selected her.
Newt said it. believe it.
turn in your VRWC card.....
"The president has stayed remarkably true to conservative principles on every major decision he has made since winning the Republican primary."
WTF is Newt smoking?
YOU aren't staffing the court. It is not your choice. A lot of conservatives think they are voting for representative on the court. They aren't. The President picks them and he is the only one who does. Don't like it? Run for President.
Untrue. He ran on a platform of free drugs for seniors, and modifying 'conservative' with the word 'compassionate' is hardly compatible with being "unabashedly conservative."
The existence of the Gang of Fourteen - really, of the Republican participants in it - explains why Bush doesn't just nominate a known Scalia rather than trying for an unknown Thomas.I mention the Bush family dynamics only to suggest that, if he can't do a Scalia, Bush is really motivated to come up with a Thomas. To us, Miers' nomination is a bolt out of the blue; I'm saying that from Bush's perspective it is no such thing.
Ooh, nice. Ignore the substance of the article and resort to smearing Gingrich with a reference to the Hildebeast.
Acting on a baseless conclusion does not a principaled stand make.
Nope. She is definitely qualified. See here.
You haven't read the pros and cons of even your favorite option, let alone ALL the "more qualified candidates". You really don't know given their records, background, interviews, and the landscape of the Senate, whether there were more *better* candidates or not.
This is "more qualified" cr*p is ridiculous arrogance. It sounds like something Ted Kennedy would have said about Clarence Thomas...in fact, I think maybe he did.
Were you born yesterday? He ran on cutting taxes, privatizing Social Security, school vouchers, and against Affirmative Action. All this came up in the debates.
It is not baseless. She lacks credentials. She along with about 10,000 other lawyers made it to partner in a law firm. That hardly puts her at the top of her profession.
About the only other credential we are hearing about is a very low level elected position and as donut server in her evangelical (maybe?) church.
She may or may not turn out to be a good Supreme Court Justice but it not would not be unprincipled to vote against her on the basis of her lack of credentials.
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.