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

Skip to comments.

CNN: HARRIET MIERS HAS WITHDRAWN!

Posted on 10/27/2005 5:54:48 AM PDT by SoFloFreeper

just breaking!!!!!!!!


TOPICS: Breaking News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 0; 00000000000000000000; 00000nosantorum; 000sorryfirstkeyword; 0notsofast1stkeyword; 0real1stkeyword; 1firstkeyword; alangreenspan; alito; alltogethernow; angieharmon; borked; botsuicidewatch; bradpitt; brown; bushsquagmier; dealwithit; edithbrownclement; faves; fredthompson; harrietemiers; harrietmiers; harrietthemere; hightechlynching; humphreybogart; janicerbrown; janicerogersbrown; jellopudding; jrb; judgeclement; judicialnominees; luttig; marklevinforscotus; miers; noloyaltytopresident; noricksantorum; rightsviolated; rino; sadday; santorumdogcatcher08; scotus; snugasabuginarug; sorrybushbots; spinelessrinos; stupidsenatetricks; traitorrepubs; unjustandunfair; victory; withdrawal
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 3,081-3,1003,101-3,1203,121-3,140 ... 3,421-3,436 next last
To: betty boop; Alamo-Girl; P-Marlowe; jude24
I think you are probably correct about a presidential appointment of justices for a term. I would choose 12 years. That is more than enough time for any human to develop independence. Also, I would permit a president to reappoint an already sitting justice providing Senate confirmation is again granted. This would be sufficient acknowledgement of the political system.

The 9 justices would have to be staggered over that 12 years into classes. One justice in the first off year election of a presidential term and two at the 3 year off term would be 3 every 4 years for 9 in 12 years wouldn't it?

If they are elected, I've considered the same pattern for elections, but I've wondered if the candidates shouldn't be regional. Northeast, southeast, northeast central, southeast central, northwest central, southwest central, northwest, southwest, Alaska&Islands. One could even consider regional elections rather than national elections.

These are all just thoughts, of course.

3,101 posted on 10/27/2005 6:25:30 PM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2647 | View Replies]

To: Cold Heat
Yes, they do think that this comes without cost. One thing this has shown me is that the big name pundits are either clueless politically or had some other agenda going.

I have a good friend who is in a narrowly held Republican legislature in the Midwest. This public fight has caused division in the local parties, and has caused a loss of confidence.

It is quite possible that the results of this fight will be the loss of legislatures in mmany states...effecting powerless Republican governors (like here in Indiana). If we can't overcome this, it will be a major disaster for conservatives, because without effective legislatures and governors, we lose the local appeal which translates into grassroots workers and votes!

I am not going to desert the party, and will support whomever the President nominates for SC. I also will support whoever is the 2008 nominee, because I think democrat governance is dangerous to my grandchildren.

But will I trust a lot of these people again? No. I will view them as allies akin to the German-Soviet alliance. I will always think they are waiting for an opportunity to stab the party in the back.

3,102 posted on 10/27/2005 6:25:39 PM PDT by Miss Marple (Lord, please look after Mozart Lover's son and keep him strong.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3091 | View Replies]

To: Cold Heat

"They will stay home, like right wingers did when Dole ran. That is what will happen. I've been waiting a long time to pay that back."

Oh, puh-LEEZE, like you RINOs don't pay us back every time a budget bill comes up or a conservative nominee is floated. You people are laughable in your 'threats.' As if having you around pretending to be 'conservatives' of any hue isn't already damaging enough for the GOP's chances nationally.

At least now you're out of the closet calling the people who didn't approve of the stealth nominations 'right wingers,' which you obviously disapprove of. If you want a party without right wingers, the Democrats would be happy to have you, as long as you can foam at the mouth and holler insults like Howard Dean, I'm sure. And plenty of RINOs around here sure did that in responding to folks around here who simply brought forward Miers' own writings. Now, doing something so sensible that was 'vicious' and 'insulting,' according to you hacks. Sounds like the DU shoe fits pretty well for y'all.


3,103 posted on 10/27/2005 6:26:15 PM PDT by LibertarianInExile (Miers did the right thing. Now the President can, by appointing Alex Kozinski, 9th Circuit COA.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3014 | View Replies]

To: flashbunny

The woman didn't get where she is by being an idiot. I think she should have had a chance to speak for herself. People have put up all sorts of fragments of her writings or speeches, culled things from many years ago, etc. If she was an embarrassment, I'm sure she would have been quietly told to withdraw at that time, and because she seems to be very loyal to Bush, I'm sure she would have done so.

I still will never understand why people didn't want to hear her out. I will also never understand the venom that went into some of these posts, where people on the one hand called her a lesbian while others decided that she had had an abortion and yet others spent their time criticizing her make-up.


3,104 posted on 10/27/2005 6:26:52 PM PDT by livius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3072 | View Replies]

To: JohnnyZ

There is nothing kool-aid there. My position is that Roberts is as far right as democrats will vote for. There's nothing really hard to understand about that. They have great party discipline and seem to be able to enforce it.


3,105 posted on 10/27/2005 6:27:05 PM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2656 | View Replies]

To: Cold Heat
Let go of the drama, for goodness sake. I'm not getting away with anything. I committed no crime, no indecent or immoral act.

You don't like my take, and I don't care.

A part of the party exerted itself, you don't like how that transpired. I can't help you there, and you don't add much of substance to the conversation, outside your you don't get this, you're going to pay, etc.

Listen, we probably don't share the same values, no biggie. I personally wish you no harm, but I fervently hope that your view, as I have surmised it from your post to me, does not prevail.

That's not a crime nor a blunder, no matter your protestations to the opposite.

3,106 posted on 10/27/2005 6:28:46 PM PDT by AlbionGirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3091 | View Replies]

To: conservativewasp

>>Ate one of our own again?<<

No, got rid of an unqualified nominee.


3,107 posted on 10/27/2005 6:29:16 PM PDT by DC Ripper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: ohioWfan

Ohio, stop whining. If you start something surely you must finish it. No matter how many you engage with..and you have me intrigued about 'pencil pushers' and 'emotional control'.... But I'd much rather have a trusted fellow 'elder' Freeper. You WERE the one who surmised I was young, and you know, I just want to learn.. Please???????????? Won't you please explain your comment.. Afterall, you've taken all this time and space to dodge the question.. wouldn't it be easier to just explain it and be done? :) Morning in America!!!


3,108 posted on 10/27/2005 6:29:58 PM PDT by JesseJane (Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their country. (More than a typing exercise))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3099 | View Replies]

To: leaf errickson

Leaf, I don't think so.. I don't have enough tinfoil to make that theory work.


3,109 posted on 10/27/2005 6:30:46 PM PDT by JesseJane (Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their country. (More than a typing exercise))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3096 | View Replies]

To: Txsleuth
I have watched the Senate almost every day...and one of the most used arguements the Republicans use against the dems is...."President Bush deserves and up or down vote." So...I just feel that since that is the Republican mantra...it should have applied in this case.

I hear you. But there is an overarching political process that played with the Miers nomination in a way that does not come into play with the others. The others have some amunt of background that admits a debate on their merits. Details of those debates are present in the Congressional Record.

Plus...don't you think it would be been interesting, and possible enlightening to find out who would have voted for her and those who would have had the integrity to NOT fall into party line..and vote against her?

I think the reason given for pulling the nomination, and the likely reason for withholding advise & consent would have coincided for many Senators. To wit, lack of information or insight into the nominee's judicial philosophy - Senator's are wise to not play "this much" roulette with what should be a reasoned decision.

Given a nomination of a certain degree of stealth, I would like to hear the Senators go on record as to their stance on that matter of principle - but I prefer that the issue of "stealth" not be introduced by the President in the first place.

3,110 posted on 10/27/2005 6:30:50 PM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3083 | View Replies]

To: JesseJane
It perturbs me to no end that idiots like Coulter use the name of Reagan to hide under!

It just irks the crap out of me and makes me want to throw something at her!

But you may not understand that Reagan was a good politician and a compromiser to move the ball forward.

Ann Coulter, Krystal and Frum are over zealous idiots who believe they can do whatever with no cost in political capital, the life's blood of politics.

Well, they have spent all of GWB's and now will see the results, but they will never blame themselves for what they did.

Quack,quack......lame duck, in the first year of the second term.

look to see Bush working hard on his legacy now. It is all he has left. I see much foreign travel in his future.

Reagan had to do the same thing because of Iran Contra. So he is in good company, but in both instances, Krystal and company and their predecessors were/are standing on presidents chest as they try to breathe. Riding the dead horse, as it were.

They brought us Clinton. They will bring another.

It's what they are good at. Anybody got eight years? Anybody? How bout you Rush! You said this would all be good for the party!

Is it? Really? (I did not think so)

3,111 posted on 10/27/2005 6:31:22 PM PDT by Cold Heat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3088 | View Replies]

To: ohioWfan
to a point. Supposedly, Blackwell is "the candidate of character". If he said those words as truth, then most Freepers would have to question his bonefides. If he said those words and didn't mean it, then he lied. Either way it adds up to an issue of character.

He could have stopped at hero and thanked John for his support. Instead, he went on.

3,112 posted on 10/27/2005 6:32:37 PM PDT by joesbucks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3092 | View Replies]

To: SoFloFreeper
It's a sad day when your own party contributes to ambushing your nominee.

My condolences, Mr. President. You deserved better flanking cover.

3,113 posted on 10/27/2005 6:32:57 PM PDT by Thumper1960 ("There is no 'tolerance', there are only changing fashions in intolerance." - 'The Western Standard')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Leapfrog
Tell me, if you fail to satisfy your lover and she leaves you for another man, who's fault is it?

Question answered with a question......

Tell me , do you blame the driver of the other car after you have run him off the road?

3,114 posted on 10/27/2005 6:34:00 PM PDT by Cold Heat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3098 | View Replies]

To: jude24; P-Marlowe; Alamo-Girl; betty boop
I have no real disagreement with anything you wrote. I do think there is political calculation in diversity appointments, but then again, I'm one who did support affirmative action so long as it was for a defined period of time. (OK, ok, I've got my flame retardant underroos on...flame away! :>)

In any case, I'm not yet convinced that Miers' conservative Christianity wasn't a part of the distaste some powerful persons had for her. I'll keep my eyes on that one to see that I hopefully am wrong.

I still think she should have been allowed to speak for herself.

Finally, I'm still not sure that this whole appointment wasn't some strategery that either backfired terribly or is working brilliantly. Unfortunately, those kind of memoirs get written years after a president is gone, so I'll probably never get to read about it.

On the other hand, I'll be with the Lord.

3,115 posted on 10/27/2005 6:34:13 PM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2666 | View Replies]

To: Thumper1960
I think Miers was a setup, she was nominated just so some conservatives could feel better about themselves after they borked her.

Now that the Conservative base is standing on it's hind legs, certain RINO Senators will think twice about letting judicial filibusters stand.
3,116 posted on 10/27/2005 6:35:30 PM PDT by TeleStraightShooter (When Frist exercises his belated Constitutional "Byrd option", Reid will have a "Nuclear Reaction".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3113 | View Replies]

To: Warren_Piece
I stand by my statement that our fast falling, allegedly conservative, President is either stupid or crazy to think that being a born-again Christian is a qualification for the SC. Some took issue with use of the word zealot and the digression proceeded from that. I received dire warnings of what, I'm not sure... but I think it was of being struck by lightening and/or being sent to Hell. Amusing!

My original post below:

Whose fault is that? The President nominated an utterly unqualified Miers simply because she was his personal legal counsel and she shares his religious zealotry. Can you say Nepotism? I voted for George W. Bush twice, I held signs for him and worked hard to convince friends, neighbors and family to vote for him. I would do it again if only because what the Democrat Party offered was far worse. The President is no conservative and I voted for the lesser of two evils, it now seems. I strongly support his strategic vision for the War on Terror, but I was terribly disappointed in his seeming inability to adequately explain it during the campaign and since. The man babbles like an idiot! I know he is not an idiot, but he sounds like one. When leading the greatest nation on earth, a President needs to clearly outline his plan for policies foreign and domestic and be able to explain and defend them. I am insulted that he seemed to think that myself and other thoughtful, conservative, Republican voters would believe everything is all right if only we could be reassured that Miers volunteered for Meals On Wheels and is a fundamentalist Christian. I am unhappy with the flawed legal reasoning that led to Roe v. Wade, but it is emphatically not the most important issue facing the court and unlikely to be overturned in the foreseeable future. I would be perfectly happy to let each state decide its own policy by popular vote and allow or disallow abortion on a state by state basis. I fear that legal lightweights like Miers would like to impose different, but equally onerous, extra-Constitutional mandates on us all. Rather than being reassured by the President's description of Miers, I found suspicions raised in my mind. I don't want a religious zealot imposing the Christian equivalent of Muslim Sharia on me any more than I want Ruth Bader Ginsberg imposing the values of the lunatic ACLU left.
3,117 posted on 10/27/2005 6:36:41 PM PDT by Nameless (I am the Bodhisattva of Tautological Truth!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2504 | View Replies]

To: Mo1
*shrug* Whatever.

I suspect that if your kids acted like this, you'd have a problem with it. Pathetic.

3,118 posted on 10/27/2005 6:37:03 PM PDT by NittanyLion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3081 | View Replies]

To: Nameless

From the moment she was nominated, the Bush Adminstration planned the Meirs withdrawl to coincide with the CIA leak indictments.

The President hopes to suck the oxygen out of the air and divert and blunt the MSM drumbeat over the pending CIA indictments and the attempts to tarnish the Bush White House. The new nomination process now takes the lead headline for the next number of news cycles. Bush again is one step ahead of the leftwing gang in DC. Watch him control the news flow with the new nomination process.


3,119 posted on 10/27/2005 6:37:39 PM PDT by leaf errickson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3117 | View Replies]

To: Cold Heat
Question answered with a question......

... typical...

Answer the question, then I'll answer your's.

3,120 posted on 10/27/2005 6:39:20 PM PDT by Michael Goldsberry (an enemy of islam -- Joe Boucher; Leapfrog; Dr.Zoidberg; Lazamataz; ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3114 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 3,081-3,1003,101-3,1203,121-3,140 ... 3,421-3,436 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