Posted on 10/19/2005 12:00:59 PM PDT by Crackingham
Writing in the Wall Street Journal, editorial board member Melanie Kirkpatrick counsels her "friends on the right" to "brew themselves a cup of chamomile tea and go back and review the roster of Bush judges." Such an exercise may help them "sleep better" with the nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court. "Any president is due some deference under the Constitution in his choice of judges," Kirkpatrick says, "and given his record on picking judges, this president deserves more than he has received."
In other words, trust Bush--or at least wait until the Senate hearings before passing judgment on Harriet Miers. For over two weeks now we've heard White House aides and pro-Miers conservatives parrot some variation of this argument. A charitable interpretation might be paraphrased as follows: Just be patient--when Miers goes before committee, she'll dazzle everyone with her punctilious mastery of constitutional law. A not-so-charitable interpretation might go like this: As long as she votes our way on the Court, what more do you want? So let's quit all this elitist nonsense about "qualifications" and "cronyism" and give her a chance.
If the pro-Miers forces mean to imply the former, then yes, they are correct to say the president deserves at least a modicum of deference in his selection. But if they mean the latter--that how Miers will vote is all that matters, and her credentials be damned--then conservatives should be aghast.
Republicans have spent much of the past quarter century establishing themselves as the Meritocracy Party: the party that rejects "dumbing down" American institutions, eschews race- and sex-based quotas, supports merit pay for schoolteachers, and endorses rigorous standards in all spheres of American life, the Supreme Court included. Yet when it comes to George W. Bush's second High Court nominee, the Meritocracy Party finds itself in quite a pickle.
I apologize to both of you, apparently I read something into a post that may, or may not, be correct. I won't inadvertently PING posters again. My mistake.
"I won't inadvertently PING posters again. My mistake."
No worries
A Clinton recess appointment.
Please give us a list of those "towering intellects" focusing on those who would submit themselves to the coordinated attack of such mental midgets as: Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy, Robert Byrd, Jesse Jackson, Louis Farrakhan, Barbara Mikulski, Joe Biden, et al. Many of the persons you would prefer removed themselves from consideration because they did not want to be "Borked." President Bush chose someone he trusts, someone whom he has known for a good long time, someone with whome he has worked for years. She is qualified constitutionally for the court. If you doubt that, read the Constitution.
Roberts was one. We don't know who all removed themselves from consideration, but I believe that Luttig did not.
President Bush chose someone he trusts, someone whom he has known for a good long time, someone with whome he has worked for years.
yeah
She is qualified constitutionally for the court. If you doubt that, read the Constitution.
That is such a lame argument. She is qualified "constitutionally". So is Pee Wee Herman.
I have no problem with that.
Actually there's no point. Each is dug into their own opinion (including me, I might add). This forum is just an outlet to express your own opinion. No one here ever changes the other person's mind.
Well, I can't speak for everyone but my opinions have certainly been swayed or at least given more support by info I've obtained on FR in relation to many issues.
but I believe that Luttig did not.
You believe? But you don't know for sure, do you?
You probably "believed" that everyone deserved an up or down vote too, didn't you? Until it came to Ms. Miers. So much for your principles.
Post 156 was not addressed to you or about you.
Excuse me. You made the assertion that all the good candidates pulled their names out. You don't know that for a fact, that is just rumour. So I replied that I thought Luttig did not. So, unless you can prove each and every judge that withdrew, then you are the one who is making assertions based upon "belief". So get off your high horse.
You probably "believed" that everyone deserved an up or down vote too, didn't you?
Yes, I do.
Until it came to Ms. Miers.
Who says I don't?
So much for your principles.
Mine are just fine. You are the one attacking me based on a totally false premise.
Your posts say you do not believe Miers deserves an up or down vote. The anti-Miers people, including you, are wanting her to either withdraw or not get voted in -- same thing!
No they don't. I have never said she should be filibustered.
How can you possibly equate not getting voted in with "an up or down vote"? How? Why don't you just admit that you think she deserves an up vote, and you have hatred for everyone who doesn't agree with you. There is no sense in making yourself look foolish by suggesting that someone who is in favor of an down vote wishes to deny her an up or down vote. Notice, the phrase is up or down.
Simple, because she won't get out of committee, thanks to the anti-Miers critics.
Miers deserves an up or down vote.
Notice, the phrase is up or down.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm Looks like up or down to me. But your view is somewhat slanted normally.
Nice job avoiding the fact that you accused me of being against an up or down vote for her on the basis of my wanting a down vote. Face it, you said something stupid and were caught. Be a man and admit you were wrong rather than try to obfuscate.
And that's what I said. Don't try to detract from your mistake by changing the argument to fit your needs.
Your posts say you do not believe Miers deserves an up or down vote. The anti-Miers people, including you, are wanting her to either withdraw or not get voted in -- same thing!\
That is what you said. You are claiming that I don't want an up or down vote because I want her to be voted down. It's there. This isn't like stealing a cookie from the cookie jar where you can deny it once you have eaten it. Your posts are right here on this thread. You said something stupid. You got caught. You are now trying to weasel out of it.
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.