Bush Bets Court on Untested Aide

I'm still ready to bet the town house that Bush is expecting to make a THIRD USCC nomination. He's got 3 years left, and Judge John P. Stevens is 85 years old! I expect to read the old man's official resignation has hit Bush's desk by Christmas.

That would be nice, but I doubt Stevens wants to resign while Bush is president. He will either die in office or wait until after the 2008 election to resign.

James Taranto wrote: The GOP has 55 senators, so six of them would have to vote "no" to defeat a nominee.

And, once again, that ignores the backdoor the RINOs left open for the Dems to filibuster. And if the nominee is someone like JRB, the RINOs will not stop them, IMO. Which means that 60 votes would be needed to stop the filibuster, not 55.

That's the math that you and Taranto are blithely ignoring here.

You are entitled to your opinion. That does not inoculate you from criticism when your opinion is off-base. And you've done your best to make snarky barbs against those who believe differently - so don't whine when you get such returned at you

This is the last time I am going to respond to you because you are not debating, you are insisting that you are correct because you believe a single article Thomas Sowell wrote.

Who are you to declare whose opinion is "off-base? "
My opinion that Harriet Miers is going to be to the left of Sandra Day O'Connor and just as "flexible" was formed through many hours of personal research and consulting with Constitutional lawyers, Judges and scholars at my GOP club. Nobody who knows anything about the Federal Judiciary thinks this nomination is proper or this nominee is will further the advancement of the Supreme Court.

Why do you think so many people who are ardent supporters of the President and who have sweat blood getting him elected twice are against it? Do you think everybody decided Monday they were going to all gang up on the object of their affection, admiration and respect?

This is bigger than President Bush. It is about the very direction of the Republican Party and future of the United States of America.

This is the last time I am going to respond to you because you are not debating,

In ohter words, you steadfastly refuse to acknowledge the fact that the Dems would filibuster someone like JRB - and the RINOs would not stop them. So you are wrong and Taranto are wrong about having enough votes for confirmation in that there would be no confirmation vote because of a filibuster.

Who are you to declare whose opinion is "off-base? "

Weren't you the one saying you had a right to an opinion? And now, when I express mine, you whine about where I get the right to criticize yours. You can dish it out, but you can't take it. So who is the wimp? Bush? Or you?

My opinion that Harriet Miers is going to be to the left of Sandra Day O'Connor and just as "flexible" was formed through many hours of personal research and consulting with Constitutional lawyers, Judges and scholars at my GOP club. Nobody who knows anything about the Federal Judiciary thinks this nomination is proper or this nominee is will further the advancement of the Supreme Court.

That's your opinion. Considering how little we know yet about Miers, I consider that jumping to a conclusion early on.

But the point stands - someone like JRB would not get a confrimation vote in the Senate as things now stand. And you refuse to confront that reality, as evidenced by your last post - when cornered, you walk away rather than acknowledge the reality.

This is bigger than President Bush. It is about the very direction of the Republican Party and future of the United States of America.

The Senate Repubicans sandbagged that earlier in the year.

So we need to get what conservatives we can into the court. There is a reason Bush wins elections and the pundits and think-tankers haven't been elected. And you have to win elections to nominate someone.

You make a strong point. Why should the dems hand Bush a victory when his approval ratings are 39% and the country seems to think he's headed in the wrong direction? It's in their interest to roast Harriet to a cinder and doom her candidacy. All this with the gleeful connivance of the MSM. (Our own Greek chorus who will start the evening news with Harriet's misery, then switch to the latest Rove/Plame nonsense, and then collateral political damage of recent hurricanes and whatever manufactured scandal they can think of.)

I'd be surprised if Bush's ratings don't hit the cellar before this is done, and it may reverberate well into '06 and '08. Add to this the NY subway terror and the Oklahoma bomb, the latter hastily covered up by the feds, and voters could be excused for losing patience with George...especially of even one of the subway terrorists sneaked into the US over the Mexican border.

The Presidency is the hardest job in the world, and the truth is Bush has been hit with more horror and tragedy than most. Let's hope his poker expertise hasn't deserted him.

"six of them would have to vote "no" to defeat a nominee"

Nobody is this stupid. Taranto is being intentionally dishonest to make his point. Obviously he is twisting the facts because he has to.

" six of them would have to vote against the Constitutional Option to defeat a nominee"

And they would.

Precisely. From their perspective this isn't the time to get all nice and collegial and senatorial procedural. It's time to reach for the saw toothed dagger. Bush is wounded. This is the time to close in for the kill. Hillary leading the charge against Bush's "unqualified crony" nominee will seal centrist rejection of Miers and win her the love of the left activist base.

This was the accomplishment the President used to defend her today.

At a meeting with the Prime Minister of Hungary the President took questions, one (surprise!) on Miers to which he responded:

Harriet Miers is an extraordinary nominee. She is a very bright woman. She is a pioneer in the law in Texas. In other words, she was the first woman hire of her firm, first partner of the firm, she's the first head of the Texas Bar Association. I mean, she has got a record of accomplishment that is extraordinary, in my judgment. She is a woman of deep character and strength. She is -- she didn't come from the bench, but so did -- you know, a lot of other people didn't come from the bench when they were named for the Supreme Court. I would ask people to look at Byron White, for example, or Judge Rehnquist, himself.

And I'm confident she's going to be a Supreme Court Judge who will not legislate from the bench, and will strictly interpret the Constitution. I am incredibly proud of my friend being willing to take on this task. She's going to be a great judge.

So no, it is not right or fair to point to this particular event and say the only "impressive accomplishment" cited is her experience with the "ABA".

Huh? I don't understand your thinking. Ford
was a Republican President. His administration
had much in common with our present Commander-in-Chief,
except that HE vetoed Congress numerous times. I refer
you to his bio:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/gf38.html

Don't know why Stevens would wait until 2008. I doubt
he'd get a more comfortable match. Trying to be the
OLDEST USC Judge before dying/retiring isn't much
help to the Nation, let alone the GOP.

You're the one who doesn't seem to get it. It doesn't matter that Ford was a Republican; what does matter is that Stevens is and has been a staunchly liberal justice, and he will want his replacement to be liberal well. Stevens may be 85 years old but he is not senile, and being replaced with another staunchly liberal justice is not likely to happen during the current Administration.

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.