 |
SwiftVets.com
Service to Country
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Me#1You#10
Site Admin
Joined: 06 May 2004
Posts: 6503
|
 Posted: Mon Oct 03, 2005 10:09 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
A conservative heavyweight weighs-in...it's making me nervous...and Mark Levin's opening salvo ain't helping...
| Quote: | Disappointed, Depressed and Demoralized
by William Kristol
Mon Oct 3,11:11 AM ET
I'M DISAPPOINTED, depressed and demoralized.
I'm disappointed because I expected President Bush to nominate someone with a visible and distinguished constitutionalist track record--someone like Maura Corrigan, Alice Batchelder, Edith Jones, Priscilla Owen, or Janice Rogers Brown--to say nothing of Michael Luttig, Michael McConnell, or Samuel Alito. Harriet Miers has an impressive record as a corporate attorney and Bush administration official. She has no constitutionalist credentials that I know of.
I'm depressed. Roberts for O'Connor was an unambiguous improvement. Roberts for Rehnquist was an appropriate replacement. But moving Roberts over to the Rehnquist seat meant everything rode on this nomination--and that the president had to be ready to fight on constitutional grounds for a strong nominee. Apparently, he wasn't. It is very hard to avoid the conclusion that President Bush flinched from a fight on constitutional philosophy. Miers is undoubtedly a decent and competent person. But her selection will unavoidably be judged as reflecting a combination of cronyism and capitulation on the part of the president.
I'm demoralized. What does this say about the next three years of the Bush administration--leaving aside for a moment the future of the Court? Surely this is a pick from weakness. Is the administration more broadly so weak? What are the prospects for a strong Bush second term? What are the prospects for holding solid GOP majorities in Congress in 2006 if conservatives are demoralized? And what elected officials will step forward to begin to lay the groundwork for conservative leadership after Bush?
The Weekly Standard |
nor does this...
| Quote: | Miers' Qualifications Are 'Non-Existent'
by Patrick J. Buchanan
Posted Oct 3, 2005
Handed a once-in-a-generation opportunity to return the Supreme Court to constitutionalism, George W. Bush passed over a dozen of the finest jurists of his day -- to name his personal lawyer.
In a decision deeply disheartening to those who invested such hopes in him, Bush may have tossed away his and our last chance to roll back the social revolution imposed upon us by our judicial dictatorship since the days of Earl Warren.
This is not to disparage Harriet Miers. From all accounts, she is a gracious lady who has spent decades in the law and served ably as Bush’s lawyer in Texas and, for a year, as White House counsel.
But her qualifications for the Supreme Court are non-existent. She is not a brilliant jurist, indeed, has never been a judge. She is not a scholar of the law. Researchers are hard-pressed to dig up an opinion. She has not had a brilliant career in politics, the academy, the corporate world or public forum. Were she not a friend of Bush, and female, she would never have even been considered.
What commended her to the White House, in the phrase of the hour, is that she “has no paper trail.” So far as one can see, this is Harriet Miers’ principal qualification for the U.S. Supreme Court.
Human Events Online - cont'd |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
jwb7605
Rear Admiral
Joined: 06 Aug 2004
Posts: 690
Location: Colorado
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 03, 2005 11:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | Disappointed, Depressed and Demoralized
by William Kristol
...
Miers' Qualifications Are 'Non-Existent'
by Patrick J. Buchanan |
Kristol, if I remember right, was pushing for McCain in the 2000 primary race,
and Buchanan, IMHO, is certifiable, and has been for several years.
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
homesteader
PO3
Joined: 17 Sep 2004
Posts: 294
Location: wisconsin
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 03, 2005 11:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| GM, I'm with you. Let's let this play out. We could very well be getting what we want without a fight. W may be solidifying the conservative leanings of the court before he throws out the red meat. If Roberts and Miers are perceived to be nonthreatening, maybe Bryer or Ginsburg will be more inclined to retire. Then W can go for the throat knowing that even if his nominees get roughed up, he has already swung the court our way. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Me#1You#10
Site Admin
Joined: 06 May 2004
Posts: 6503
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 03, 2005 11:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jwb7605 wrote: | | ...and Buchanan, IMHO, is certifiable, and has been for several years. |
Yikes! Well, as probably one of the most stalwart defenders of SVPT, may we allow him at least a certain degree of lucidity and perspicacity?  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kate
Admin
Joined: 14 May 2004
Posts: 1891
Location: Upstate, New York
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 04, 2005 5:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
President has had a strong record of nominating conservatives and fighting for them. As for Miers, he would have to know her ideology after all these years...
fromBeldar
emphais his
| Quote: | <snip>
To you, me, the Senate, and the public, Harriet Miers may seem as much of a blank slate as David Souter was when Bush-41 nominated him. "Another 'stealth' candidate," many will say, "another blank slate about whom we know too little to make confident predictions!" That's already the official party line of the Dems, and it's something being muttered less loudly among puzzled Republicans as well.
But that is emphatically not the case from the perspective of George W. Bush. And the Constitution does, after all, give him the nomination power — not "the White House," not "the Republican Party," nor "conservatives generally," nor even "us'n who put him back into office." And he knows, and he's always known, that the blame for an appointee who turned out to become "another Souter" would likewise be placed on him. It's a responsibility and an opportunity whose benefits and risks he sought, but that he obviously takes very seriously indeed, because from Dubya's perspective, Harriet Miers was the one prospective female nominee about whom he personally felt that he could be most certain in predicting what sort of Justice she will become. |
andHughHewitt
emphasis mine
| Quote: | <snip>
When Chief Justice Roberts was nominated, I wrote a piece for the Weekly Standard on the importance of Executive Branch experience, "The Presidents' Man." That piece focused on John Roberts' service in the Counsel's Office under Reagan, and concluded that his nomination brought
"to the highest court the sort of experience it deserves among its members, especially in a time of war. It can only help all the justices, even those who will vigorously disagree with the new justice from time to time, to have within their number a genuine voice of experience from within the inner circles of presidential decision-making."
The Chief Justice's experience did not, however, include GWOT experience, and it is here that Miers has a decisive advantage. Consider that none of the Justices, not even the new Chief, has seen the battlefield in the GWOT from the perspective or with the depth of knowledge as has the soon to be Justice Miers. The Counsel to the President has seen it all, and knows what the President knows, the Secretaries of State and Defense, the Joint Chiefs and the Attorney General.
I suspect that the President thinks first and foremost about the GWOT each morning, and that this choice for SCOTUS brings to that bench another Article II inclined justice with the sort of experience that no one inside the Court will have.
<snip>
The president is a poker player in a long game. He's decided to take a sure win with a good sized pot. I trust him. So should his supporters. |
noted several comments/speculation by FReepers along the lines that Ginsburg may want out, but hesitates because she doesn't trust President Bush .. this may encourage her to step down, and he'll have yet another seat to fill
hmm in poker, would that be...ya gotta know when to hold 'em
_________________
.
one of..... We The People |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
shawa
CNO
Joined: 03 Sep 2004
Posts: 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 04, 2005 6:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks, Kate for posting those blogs. I had just copied to post it myself. I just had a chance to sit down and scan some of the blogs tonight and checked Hewitt whom I really admire and then Beldar, another favorite. These two have it nailed.
I just wish some of the supposedly 'heavyweight' repubs would cool it with their cries of betrayal!! The President has made stellar appointments thus far, and the more I learn about Miers, I think she is another one. I encourage everyone to read the whole content of what Beldar and Hewitt have written.
Another blog I really like MacRanger on 'Separating The Sheep From The Goats' at:
Macsmind
| Quote: | ~SNIP~
It was downright funny - if not sad - to see conservative bloggers act like the rejected lover today. See my post here for the fallout, but it was like:
"After all we've done for you! You treat us like this!!! Boooo, Hoooo!"
Again, people - get over it.
You know I spend half my life in the Military. Sometimes I didn't like the choices my commander made, as a Sergeant sometimes my men didn't like mine.
But they were my choices. My people accepted my choices because I earned their trust.
What it got down to is that ulitmately I trusted the leadership of those above me even if I didn't agree with their choices.
We have touted Bush's leadership, but of late some of us have barked at his every move, sometimes sounding no different than the opposition.
If you will, today we had a dividing of the sheeps and goats of sorts.
I'll let each decide which group they fall into.
Cpt Ed "Grudging support"
Right Wing News with more quotes
Update I: Example of Goat: Ponnuru over at the Corner. In fact, I'm sending a whole case of Pepto Fed-Ex'd to the Corner tommorow. Cripes, what a meltdown they had today.
Kudos to Mark Noonan, at Blogs for Bush, he's been steady all day long. It's refreshing. |
_________________
“I love the man that can smile in trouble, that can gather strength from distress, and grow brave by reflection. ‘Tis the business of little minds to shrink; but he whose heart is firm, and whose conscience approves his conduct, will pursue his principles unto death.” (Thomas Paine, 1776) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GM Strong
Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy
Joined: 18 Sep 2004
Posts: 1579
Location: Penna
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 04, 2005 1:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Two prominent SCOTUS Justices were never judges.
William Rehnquist was in private practice till 1969, appointed as Asst AG and White House counsel under Nixon aqnd then appointed to SC as an Associate Justice before being elevated to Chief.
Byron White, better known as a football player before becoming a lawyer. Worked for JFK and was an Asst AG before Kennedy appointed his an Associate Justice.
Makes you have to reconsider some things, doesn't it??
(KKK Master Hugo Black was appointed by FDR out of the Senate, but that is another story and Libs like to ignore it. Read Levin's "Men in Black".)
_________________
8th Army Korea 68-69
Last edited by GM Strong on Tue Oct 04, 2005 3:25 pm; edited 3 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
srmorton
PO2
Joined: 07 Aug 2004
Posts: 383
Location: Jacksonville, NC
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 04, 2005 3:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
As much as I love and trust GWB, I must admit that I was shocked and
disappointed when I clicked on Yahoo yesterday morning just after 8 am
and saw the headline about this nomination. I have been devouring all
of the blogs for the past few weeks (especially Confirmthem.com) and
they had convinced me that it would be Luttig or Williams. I was hoping
for Lutting because I was getting the sense that, although GWB was
inclined to appoint a woman, he was not comfortable with any of the ones
under consideration. I did not really believe that he would nominate JRB
at this point because I believe that he wants her to stay where she is for
a few years.
As the day wore on, I began to feel better about the nomination because
I remembered that all of GWB's nominations for the lower courts have
been excellent. I also read the opinions of Hugh Hewitt and Jay Sekulow,
both of whom are Christian, pro-life lawyers whom I admire very much.
I learned a little more about her evangelical background, although I did
not know about her association with Exodus until I read the earlier post
about it. The fact that Bill Kristol does not approve of it does not impress
me in the least since he has not approved of anything GWB has done
for the past five years except the GWOT and he has been cirtical of that
also. The fact that Bush KNOWS her (unlike GHWB with Souter and
Regan with Kennedy and O'Connor) gives me great comfort. I am
beginning to feel that, once again, GWB has been "misunderestimated" -
not only by the left, but by many on the right as well!
_________________
Susan R. Morton |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Schadow
Vice Admiral
Joined: 30 Sep 2004
Posts: 936
Location: Huntsville, Alabama
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 04, 2005 4:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| homesteader wrote: | In his intro of Ms Miers this AM the President mentioned that she had been involved with Exodus Ministries. There is an Exodus Ministries that helps gays leave the lifestyle. They maintain that homosexuality is a choice and can be repudiated. It has strong evangelical Christian ties.
If Ms Miers was in any way connected to this particular organization, the left is going to come unglued. There may be other ministries by the same name that have nothing to do with homosexual "rehabilitation" but when their "dirt diggers" start doing their thing they are going to come across the name. If she was involved, she is going to have to stick to her principles under great pressure. If the Exodus she was involved with has nothing to do with homosexuality, she is going to be under pressure to distance herself from something with which she was not associated. |
This particular flap seems to have been put to bed:
Miers, the "Exodus Scandal," and Why our Devotion to the Truth Hurts Us
By WinstonSmith
| Quote: | There's a profoundly revealing facet you can find in one of today's sub-plots on the Harriet Miers nom. Early in the day, as bloggers and reporters scrounged for information on this mystery candidate, a rumor spread like wildfire that Miers had worked with the "Exodus Foundation", a group that works to "cure" homosexuals of their "flaw."
Spreading across the internet like wildfire, the Mier revelation seemed to be the first proof of this stealth candidate's extremist theocratic evangelical leanings.
But just as quickly as it spread, it was debunked. Turns out the Exodus group that Miers was involved with was a different organization altogether, although with the same name. The Exodus organization Miers worked with helped out former criminals to rehabilitate them.
So why is this revealing? Because the debunkers of this damaging rumor were the very groups searching to dig up dirt on Miers. The debunkers were the people who wanted to believe she would do something like this. But it wasn't true. So they posted the truth. They willingly corrected themselves. |
http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/10/3/191115/648
Schadow
_________________
Capt, 8th U.S. Army, Korea '53 - '54 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
carpro
Admin
Joined: 10 May 2004
Posts: 1176
Location: Texas
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 04, 2005 4:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Here's a well thought out view of the Miers nomination:
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=4876
Don't misunderestimate Miers
October 4th, 2005
President Bush is a politician trained in strategic thinking at Harvard Business School, and schooled in tactics by experience and advice, including the experience and advice of his father, whose most lasting political mistake was the nomination of David Souter. The nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court shows that he has learned his lessons well. Regrettably, a large contingent of conservative commentators does not yet grasp the strategy and tactics at work in this excellent nomination.
SNIP
Rather than extend any benefit of the doubt to the President’s White House lawyer and counselor, some take her lack of a paper trail and a history of vocal judicial conservatism as a sign that she may be an incipient Souter. They implicitly believe that the President is not adhering to his promise of nominating Justices in the mold of Scalia and Thomas. The obvious differences between Souter, a man personally unknown to Bush 41, and Miers, a woman who has known Bush 43 for decades, and who has served as his close daily advisor for years, are so striking as to make this level of distrust rather startling. Having seen the Souter debacle unfold before his very eyes, the President is the last man on earth to recapitulate it.
_________________
"If he believes his 1971 indictment of his country and his fellow veterans was true, then he couldn't possibly be proud of his Vietnam service." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
shawa
CNO
Joined: 03 Sep 2004
Posts: 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 04, 2005 8:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
An EXCELLENT article!!! Thanks Carpro!
| Quote: | | In part, I think these conservatives have unwittingly adopted the Democrats’ playbook, seeing bombast and ‘gotcha’ verbal games as the essence of political combat. Victory for them is seeing the enemy bloodied and humiliated. They mistake the momentary thrill of triumph in combat, however evanescent, for lasting victory where it counts: a Supreme Court comprised of Justices who will assemble majorities for decisions reflecting the original intent of the Founders. |
IMO, Bush is looking to set a certain dynamic in the interactions of Justices for years to come. Not only does he want a conservative court but also wants a COHESIVE court to make DEFINITIVE majority decisions. As such he is looking at personalities and character of his appointees in order to promote that kind of cohesiveness.
Because of his close personal relationship with Miers for years, I have no doubt that he KNOWS exactly her opinions and philosphy on the important issues to conservatives. (Something that by law, he is forbidden from exploring with those he interviews as potential court nominees.) He also knows her character and that she will not be swayed from her beliefs. He also knows her congeniality and people skills that can bring others into the fold.
A speculation on my part, is that Bush is looking to give Roberts immediate support as Chief Justice. We all know that Justices have lofty opinions of themselves, sometimes to the point of arrogance. I wonder that there could possibly be some undercurrent of jealousy or resentment on the part of sitting Justices toward Roberts being thrust upon them as the 'star'. Certainly over time, Roberts will bring others along just by the power of his intellect, but Miers' people skills can help smooth the way for the immediate goals of the Roberts Court and also 'watch his back'. Just my speculation.
By the way, THERE IS an immediacy involved. Just look at the important cases coming before this session of the Court:
http://news.findlaw.com/wash/s/20050929/20050929113124.html
Get O'Connor out of there. Get Miers in. That gives us four solid Conservatives and hope that Kennedy (who has been all over the place)can be kept in line by Roberts intellect and Miers likeability.
I HOPE!
_________________
“I love the man that can smile in trouble, that can gather strength from distress, and grow brave by reflection. ‘Tis the business of little minds to shrink; but he whose heart is firm, and whose conscience approves his conduct, will pursue his principles unto death.” (Thomas Paine, 1776) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LongKnife56
Seaman Recruit
Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 16
Location: Quincy, MA
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 04, 2005 9:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Don't read his, or his father's lips. It's just another Bush promise made and another Bush promise broken. We know Scalia and Thomas and Harriet (Souter) Myers isn't them. I have ripped my Bush-Cheney '04 bumper sticker off my car.
_________________
1/9th Air Cav
Phuoc Vinh, RVN '69-70 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anker-Klanker
Admiral
Joined: 04 Sep 2004
Posts: 1033
Location: Richardson, TX
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 05, 2005 1:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
Longknife56: our moderators have have admonished us to keep the dialog civil, so I won't say what I'd like to say in response.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Deuce
Senior Chief Petty Officer
Joined: 19 Mar 2005
Posts: 589
Location: FL
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 05, 2005 6:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| GM Strong wrote: | | I listened to El Rushbo's interview with VP Cheney and I am willing to wait and see. It has to play out and we cannot be to quick to blow it here. Pres. Bush has suckered these Libs many times and this may be another. We know we are not happy with McCain-Fiengold, excessive spending etc. but we have wait and see. I'm going to be optimistic. On this one we simply have to trust. |
....that his analysis: "When it comes to a cross-examination, she can fillet better than Mrs. Paul." is correct. That's good enough for me.
Deuce |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
carpro
Admin
Joined: 10 May 2004
Posts: 1176
Location: Texas
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 05, 2005 7:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| LongKnife56 wrote: | | Don't read his, or his father's lips. It's just another Bush promise made and another Bush promise broken. We know Scalia and Thomas and Harriet (Souter) Myers isn't them. I have ripped my Bush-Cheney '04 bumper sticker off my car. |
Bear in mind that they won't be running for President again, but Kerry and Hillary will.
Would you rather trust GW's picks or theirs? 
_________________
"If he believes his 1971 indictment of his country and his fellow veterans was true, then he couldn't possibly be proud of his Vietnam service." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
