As I eluded to in a post earlier last week. The President either knows something about this nominee and anticipated that conservatives would take his word for it that she was the "best possible choice" or he was abandoning them altogether. I think the recent onslaught of defensive statements from the White House clearly comes down on the former.
He has underestimated the backing of conservative leadership and pundits. This I find fault in. It seems as if the President has taken advise similar to that which I've given (not that it came from me directly) to make "damn sure" that this nominee was of like thinking before putting them up for nomination. The mistake he made was not letting pertinent conservative alliances aware of it FIRST!
This nominee may well be of the likes of Scalia or Thomas in all ways. She may prove to be the judicial savior of "Right To Life" organizations and individuals across the country. Unfortunately, the President made it look VERY MUCH like he was avoiding a fight without providing assurances to his base that he hadn't abandoned them. This may turn out to be his biggest mistake yet as President. NOW, in order to settle the concerns of the right...he will practically have to play his cards early. Having apparently confided in Focus on the Family President James Dobson via Karl Rove, the President didn't prelude that conversation with - keep your mouth SHUT! about why you know she'd be a good justice! :)
This is the worst possible scenario for the President. Conservatives now don't trust his pick, liberals are curious about comments from previously wishy-washy supporters... now you may see a consensus NO vote because of it - Incredible.
Oct 12, 2005
Bush to Conservatives: Back Off Miers
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
16 comments:
Give me a break, PA--If the President had kept to his word and selected a "rock-solid" conservative, this debate would not be taking place!
Just because she is not a judge with 10 years of legal decisions outlining her views against abortion doesn't mean that she is not known to be a pro-lifer to her friends and close allies. No one knows me from Adam but if you were President, wouldn't you appoint me to the court?
What a frightening prospect that would be for the USA--ME AS PRESIDENT AND YOU AS A SUPREME COURT JUSTICE--GOOD GRIEF CHARLIE BROWN!!! (LOL)
Squirrel, you think by wanting a supreme court justice that would respect life and the US Constitution that this person must be "Ultra-Conservative" - That's completely untrue. I want a Conservative judge. One that would interpret the constitution based on the words in it, not what they THINK the words would mean in 2005. I would like a judge which would overturn Roe v Wade for many reasons but not the least of which because it was a horrible decision completely void of any judicial prudence. It was another attempt by the liberals to decay the american society and it has done just that. Laws governing society are to be set by the legislatures of the states. This actually makes your arguement. If you are in fact correct, then you should be siding with us that the justices should throw back to Elected representatives of the people these such decisions. Let the ficticious 71% would agree with you vote for the people who would make that law. - I think you'd find that your facts are sorely mistaken.
Liberty, I have no problem with people gambling. Frankly I enjoy a good $100 jar winning myself. Lets not confuse killing innocent babies with someone's inability to control their habits.
To your point, I don't know why she was picked either, unless like I say the President knows something that he's not saying outright.
Wrong again in your thinking... an conservative judge would not allow in perpetuity a bad ruling to stand... they would overturn and allow the states to regulate it as it was intended in the constitution
If the "Majority" like you say believes that then so be it (wrongly or not)... however it is for an elected legislature to decide not unelected judges
Squirrel, if the majority of Americans support a woman's right to choose, then explain the national poll commissioned by American Values and the American Family Association that found that 50.3% support a more conservative Supreme Court as opposed to 30.5% who would prefer a more liberal Court. The poll also indicated that a majority of respondents do not approve of many of the High Court's liberal rulings. Please see my posting of August 1, 2005.
For reference here is the link to the poll referenced above:
http://media.afa.net/newdesign/ReleaseDetail.asp?id=3224
And other polls aren't biased? Please tell me you don't believe that? Even you must understand that polling questions can be asked in such a way by whatever organization in order to obtain their desired response. Interesting the poll you cited didn't show how they asked the question. The issue of pro-life v. pro choice does not limit itself to a simplistic "yes" or "no" answer.
OK - Polls are biased, big surprise. But the original topic is being ignored.
Spoken like a true moderator, PA--but seriously, Miers lack of judicial experience is cause for serious concern, at least from where I sit, and I'm just not willing to roll the dice that Miers might rule the "right" way on issues such as whether or not to overturn Roe v. Wade. The critical nature of the issues facing this country simply will not tolerate such a reckless and dangerous process. If you remember folks placed high hopes in David Souter, and look what a disappointment he turned out to be.
I have to stand by my 10/11/2005 posting and I'm going one step further, by saying either the President must withdraw the nomination, or Miers must ask to be removed from consideration to the Court
OK - one very distinct difference between her and David Souter.... President Bush #1 didn't know Souter from Adam. John Sanunu (sp) brought him to the table and Bush took some extremely bad advice. JS was a liberal hack who bought his way into the White House. GW has known Miers personally for 15 years, they've had Christmas, Easters and vacations together. He would know her views without asking (or maybe he asked which isn't a problem for me either way)
Regardless, I feel better about this now than I did early on. I am willing to give her the benefit of the doubt considering the President in 6 years hasn't backed away from a fight with Congress even when it was politically advantageous. In two terms as Gov of Texas...every single appointment was to a staunch conservative. Why would it make any sense to do anything different now? - Why didn't he pick Ludwig? or one of the others... because you I and every member of the judiciary committee knows there isn't a snowball's chance in hell of actually getting them on the court. This is an end run with a reverse to use a football mediphor.
Which BY THE WAY I am still reeling about the ND USC game... should have been over when Leonhard fumbled! but I digress....
Good question about Luttig? I would have been alot more comfortable than I am now. Regardless of how long GW has known Miers, this does not speak to her qualifications to be a Supreme Court Justice. Sorry, but end-run tacticts just don't "cut-it" with me. BTW: you're reeling after ND USC--I want to PUKE after PSU and Michigan--You just don't give up a cheap TD with 1 second on the clock!!
Sorry Squirrel, not a buyer here on your "Bush is to blame for the 3.25 a gallon" bandwagon. We're paying that much because the area where our refinery's exist(ed) is now a pile of tinker toys. That and in part to the sale of our country's soul by 8 years of Clinton in bed with the Saudi's.
You are right about one of your arguments though. I am a firm believer in Reagon-esc top down economics. It is the way capitalism works. However Republicans AND DEMOCRATS combined have contributed to bastardizing this theory.
Capitalism will always exist of HAVES and HAVE NOTs... the problem is we are so content on ignoring social problems in our country in leu of ECONOMIC factors that we forget that PEOPLE are the economy and their problems are economic problems.
Reality? Come on - Doesn't sound like you know the meaning of the word. You can do better than that argument can't you?
Squirrel, you tell me my head is burried in the sand all the time, tell me when Im wrong?!
Post a Comment