Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Bush Bets Court on Untested Aide
Human Events ^

Posted on 10/07/2005 12:02:21 PM PDT by Betaille

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 181-191 next last
To: dirtboy
Under that test, Scalia failed #2 in Gonzales...

Gonzales V. Oregon which was heard 2 days ago?

41 posted on 10/07/2005 12:45:04 PM PDT by msnimje (If you suspect this post might need a sarcasm tag..... it does!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

Comment #42 Removed by Moderator

To: Betaille

Another "woe is us" tale.


43 posted on 10/07/2005 12:45:14 PM PDT by verity (Don't let your children grow up to be mainstream media maggots.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: msnimje
Gonzales V. Oregon

Gonzales v Raich.

44 posted on 10/07/2005 12:45:33 PM PDT by dirtboy (Drool overflowed my buffer...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy

"You really and truly are an idiot."

LOL. The liberal line against Goldwater, Reagan, etc...


45 posted on 10/07/2005 12:46:19 PM PDT by Betaille ("And if the stars burn out there's only fire to blame" -Duran Duran)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: uncbob
That is what a real statesman and leader would do

He already got sandbagged by the damn RINOs once. And now they control the process, along with seven Dems, from the center.

46 posted on 10/07/2005 12:46:28 PM PDT by dirtboy (Drool overflowed my buffer...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Betaille
LOL. The liberal line against Goldwater, Reagan, etc...

And in your case, it's the truth.

47 posted on 10/07/2005 12:46:58 PM PDT by dirtboy (Drool overflowed my buffer...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Betaille
There is the base...and there is the leadership of the party. That applies not only to us ...but to them as well.

Sometimes the leadership may pursue strategies that the base is not privy to.

We have our Rove...so do they.

Who knows...Im considering tuning out for awhile and go do something else.
48 posted on 10/07/2005 12:47:24 PM PDT by Dat Mon (still lookin for a good one....tagline)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: workerbee

workerbee wrote: "Don't underestimate peer pressure. SC justices aren't immune from it."

Well said! I have no doubt the SCOTUS libs are rational people who believe they are doing the right thing. They will no doubt forcefully argue their points. Will Bush's nominee have the intellectual fortitude and faith in the true meaning of the Constitution necessary to stand up to the assault? We can only guess, because nothing in her past shows her to be a devout conservative. In fact, she's changed her stripes over the years--most recently in her 50s!


49 posted on 10/07/2005 12:48:58 PM PDT by CitizenUSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: workerbee
Washington is a viciously liberal place, and just like any other club, she's going to be under alot of pressure to "fit in."

I'm not sure this 60 year old Church Lady is so concerned about fitting in. I get the sense she'll work hard and not give much of a hoot what people think of her.

50 posted on 10/07/2005 12:49:33 PM PDT by Uncledave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy
Dirtboy, why don't you tell us why you believe she would be an excellent addition to the Supreme Court and was indeed "the Best Person" (not woman, best person) the President could find?

I would help all us skeptics out greatly if you could share with us what you know that we can't seem to find for days of searching. You can consider it your public service duty for this year and I, for one, would be great appreciative.
51 posted on 10/07/2005 12:49:36 PM PDT by msnimje (If you suspect this post might need a sarcasm tag..... it does!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: aumrl
I seem to recall discussions on Roberts on FR. NO one can say with certainty how anyone is going to change over the years.PERIOD

Roberts has a paper trail and is a member of the Federalist Society
52 posted on 10/07/2005 12:50:17 PM PDT by Vision (When Hillary Says She's Going To Put The Military On Our Borders...She Becomes Our Next President)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy
Sowell wrote a very good piece on the subject, and his analysis tends to be very rational and sober, unlike folks like Norquist and Weyrich, who have their own power bases and interests.

People with no power bases, like Sowell and Williams, must sing for their supper and suck up to the boss for whatever scraps he deigns to throw.

53 posted on 10/07/2005 12:50:21 PM PDT by Sam the Sham (A conservative party tough on illegal immigration could carry California in 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: TheDon; CitizenUSA

I doubt the White House secretary/counsel gets invited to the same parties as a member of SCOTUS...

That being said, I don't know how much socializing will effect this woman - being a spinster from TX and all, clearly the enormous pressure to marry and have a family didn't sway her - haven't met too many unmarrieds from the great state of TX! (I did have an unmarried Aunt Oma who lived in Dallas until her 90's - the ultimate threat of my parents when we were teenagers/twenty somethings bringing home the wrong guy, was that if we didn't watch out we would become like Aunt Oma...)

That being said I have no faith in this pick - if GWB had any political capital left, he's squandered it. Some of tried to rationalize this pick as "brilliant" - but I think CitizenUSA's story makes a good point: you don't make a lifetime independent appointment based on current LOYALTY. If she had worked for the same causes as him, or us, or the right at all, perhaps this wouldn't be such a stretch for us now.


54 posted on 10/07/2005 12:52:43 PM PDT by nerdgirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Uncledave

"I'm not sure this 60 year old Church Lady is so concerned about fitting in. I get the sense she'll work hard and not give much of a hoot what people think of her."

I would like to point out that the reason she has recieved the label "Church Lady", is that the ONLY rationalization we have heard for her nomination is that she goes to an evangelical church. Hardly sufficient reasoning for a supreme court nomination.


55 posted on 10/07/2005 12:53:10 PM PDT by Betaille ("And if the stars burn out there's only fire to blame" -Duran Duran)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: uncbob
The very fact that BUSH did NOT expect this backlash shows he is out of touch with the conservative base and is more concerned with Reid and Schumer.

I agree. It is pretty apparent that they were not expecting the response they are getting. That makes me more nervous than the nomination itself.

56 posted on 10/07/2005 12:53:25 PM PDT by Wphile (Keep the UN out of Iraq)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: TheDon
It always helps to have people who can exert peer pressure in the "right" way.

I don't see how Miers brings anything to the table in this regard at the Supreme Court. I think the hope is that she will be a reliable follower of Thomas and Scalia.

57 posted on 10/07/2005 12:54:28 PM PDT by workerbee (A person's a person no matter how small.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: aumrl

And you think Miers will sail through with 60 votes ? Why ? Her outstanding qualifications ?

The Democrats could not credibly argue that Roberts did not have the intellectual weight and qualifications for the job. Independent voters respected Roberts and agreed that he was the man for the job. That is why half the Democratic senators ignored the Moveon and ACLU types and voted for him. Nobody outside the Christian Right thinks that Miers has the qualifications for this job.


58 posted on 10/07/2005 12:54:32 PM PDT by Sam the Sham (A conservative party tough on illegal immigration could carry California in 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: msnimje
Dirtboy, why don't you tell us why you believe she would be an excellent addition to the Supreme Court and was indeed "the Best Person" (not woman, best person) the President could find?

I will defer to Sowell's column, who said it better than I could:

Thomas Sowell: Republican Senate Is Weak, Not Bush

President Bush has taken on too many tough fights -- Social Security being a classic example -- to be regarded as a man who is personally weak. What is weak is the Republican majority in the Senate.

When it comes to taking on a tough fight with the Senate Democrats over judicial nominations, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist doesn't really have a majority to lead. Before the President nominated anybody, before he even took the oath of office for his second term, Senator Arlen Specter was already warning him not to nominate anyone who would rile up the Senate. Later, Senator John Warner issued a similar warning. It sounded like a familiar Republican strategy of pre-emptive surrender.

Before we can judge how the President played his hand, we have to consider what kind of hand he had to play. It was a weak hand -- and the weakness was in the Republican Senators.

Does this mean that Harriet Miers will not be a good Supreme Court justice if she is confirmed? It is hard to imagine her being worse than Sandra Day O'Connor -- or even as bad.

The very fact that Harriet Miers is a member of an evangelical church suggests that she is not dying to be accepted by the beautiful people, and is unlikely to sell out the Constitution of the United States in order to be the toast of Georgetown cocktail parties or praised in the New York Times. Considering some of the turkeys that Republicans have put on the Supreme Court in the past, she could be a big improvement.

--snip--

The bottom line with any Supreme Court justice is how they vote on the issues before the High Court. It would be nice to have someone with ringing rhetoric and dazzling intellectual firepower. But the bottom line is how they vote. If the President is right about Harriet Miers, she may be the best choice he could make under the circumstances.

---------------

Does Sowell like this reality? Apparently not. Do I like it? No. I would love to see Bush, in a post-nuclear-option Senate, ram JRB down the Dem's throat. But he cannot. That is the reality here. Sowell is smart enough to realize that.

So Bush's critics over this nomination can engage in the luxury of putting forth their dream candidates as an alternative. But the Senate Republicans took that luxury away from Bush.

59 posted on 10/07/2005 12:54:49 PM PDT by dirtboy (Drool overflowed my buffer...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Sam the Sham
And you think Miers will sail through with 60 votes ? Why ? Her outstanding qualifications ?

No.

Because she is acceptable to the Gang of 14.

And they control the show.

As long as they hold, it will only take 51 votes, because they will prevent the Dems from filibustering.

60 posted on 10/07/2005 12:55:42 PM PDT by dirtboy (Drool overflowed my buffer...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 181-191 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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson