Comments on: Miers Announcement

By: Gene Redlin

Gene Redlin — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

Rob, As much as I support our president, perhaps being full-on in opposition to Meirs will say more about the mood of the country and the conservative movement than all the editorial content in the world.

So, Ms Meirs, sorry.

It’s like going deer hunting with one bullet. One shot. Hit or miss. The USA can’t afford a miss here. Aim higher.

By: Sphagnum

Sphagnum — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

I think I’d like a little clarification on this, Rob, if you don’t mind. So let me ask you this.

When Roberts was voted on, his vote should have been 100-0. He was obviously qualified to fill the position. Yet, he was voted against by 22 Democats. Similarly, Harriet Miers IS qualified for this position (she may not be the BEST, but she’s obviously qualified). So my question is, do you think it was wrong for any of the 22 to vote against Roberts, and if so, why would voting against Miers be any different?

By: Ryan

Ryan — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

Rob, why are you being such an obstructionist? Do you hate America? Btw: This =/ this.

By: The Flickertail Journal: ND Re

The Flickertail Journal: ND Re — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

&heellip; Say Anything:After much careful consideration and reflection over Bush’s nomination of Miers for the Supreme Court I have come to the following conclusions: It was a bad choice and she should be denied appointment.Of course, that’s after this:I believe that Republicans are fully within the bounds of their power to change the rules and bypass the Democrat filibuster. The Senate is allowed by the Constitution to change its rules. If the Republicans have the vote necessary to change the rules I see no real problem in them doing it.And this: Just another obstruction technique. The longer they beat this dead horse the less time Republicans have for furthering their agenda.And this: &heellip;

By: Sphagnum

Sphagnum — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

Oh, I don’t expect unanimous agreement on ANY nominee, but I think that she is qualified enough that we could expect near unanimous agreement. She isn’t unqualified… I think I may take offense at the notion that we should vote against her for the sole purpose of forcing the President to chose someone else. That is overstepping the bounds of Congress.

The President chooses, the Congress consents. It isnt’ up to the Congress to decide if there are better picks and to send her back for someone better… She’s good enough to be confirmed from what I’ve seen so far, subject to change I suppose during the hearings.

By: Thatedeguy

Thatedeguy — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

I've got a couple of ideas as to why she was nominated. I won't go into detail on both, but lets just say that they involve no infighting over the nomination, and a non-confirmation. http://www.thatedeguy.com/archives/2005/10/bush-nominates-miers-to-supreme-court

By: Ryan

Ryan — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

It’s not about the filibusters – it’s that you hammered the Democrats for opposing judicial nominees, but now you’re opposing judicial nominees. The rhetoric is backfiring, especially over-the-top stuff like Seth’s traitor remark.

As far as your conflicting statements, I don’t see how you can resolve them. You don’t believe the courts should overturn law, but you believe the courts should overturn Roe.

By: LoadTheMule

LoadTheMule — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

He has proved he is with us on several big-ticket items

Such as?

Regards…

By: Tom_with_a_Dream

Tom_with_a_Dream — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

It has more to do with me not knowing what in the heck Bush is trying to do.

I don’t know what Bush is thinking either, but I have settled in my mind that I will trust him. Not the best position he could have asked of us, true, but I am willing.

He has proved he is with us on several big-ticket items, although he certainly could have set himself up better by vetoing a bill or two, by securing that border, and by trying to control the belt size of the Bureaucracy.

Time will tell but for now, I believe Bush has appointed a Justice who will prove to be in the mold of Scalia and Thomas, as he promised during the campaign. Ask me in five years and I will be willing to admit defeat if I am wrong.

Leaders have an obligation to set the direction for the troops, and it is common for the troops to not understand why they must march in this-or-that direction. But since, by definition, they are in trees, and the leader (hopefully) is operating from a position of greater perspective, only the leader can see exactly how big the forest is, and in which direction it extends.

It’s not a great argument to be sure, but Trust the President.

By: Seth Yantiss

Seth Yantiss — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

The rhetoric is backfiring, especially over-the-top stuff like Seth's traitor remark.

Over-the-top, eh? Whatever... He IS a traitor.