Tuesday, October 04, 2005
Opposition Party Need Not Apply
So its been said before (I think in "The West Wing") and since I can't seem to get the quote right ill paraphrase. The Republican Party doesn't need an opposition party. We do fine shooting ourselves in the foot without the Dems. Without getting to much into detail about Harriet Miers qualifications or lack there of, this was a nomination out of total lack of spine. The President nominated for Assoicate Justice of the Supreme Court someone the Democratic Leadership actually suggested. What happened to the cowboy I voted for? Could someone ring him up and tell him he needs to do a better job of legacy shopping cause Harriet Miers isn't quite the legacy he wants. He went so far out of his way to avoid a fight with the Left, he ended up getting a fight from the Right. I do not doubt her conservative credentials, however it should take more then that to make it to the Supreme Court. Another good point for those on the Right who man not like my take, (I admitt it, I didnt come up with this) what if it was President Kerry/Clinton nominating his long time lawyer to the Supreme Court? What would you be saying then?
So its been said before (I think in "The West Wing") and since I can't seem to get the quote right ill paraphrase. The Republican Party doesn't need an opposition party. We do fine shooting ourselves in the foot without the Dems. Without getting to much into detail about Harriet Miers qualifications or lack there of, this was a nomination out of total lack of spine. The President nominated for Assoicate Justice of the Supreme Court someone the Democratic Leadership actually suggested. What happened to the cowboy I voted for? Could someone ring him up and tell him he needs to do a better job of legacy shopping cause Harriet Miers isn't quite the legacy he wants. He went so far out of his way to avoid a fight with the Left, he ended up getting a fight from the Right. I do not doubt her conservative credentials, however it should take more then that to make it to the Supreme Court. Another good point for those on the Right who man not like my take, (I admitt it, I didnt come up with this) what if it was President Kerry/Clinton nominating his long time lawyer to the Supreme Court? What would you be saying then?
# posted by UCScottB4U @ 9:39 AM 
Comments:
Long time no talk to Scotty. I've enjoyed your posts. I'm at the DOJ now (full time summer, part time since classes at GW started back up) and I worked, start to finish on the JGR nomination. I met him several times and worked closely with him during the hearings. He's a incredible mind and an outstanding gentleman. This was an absolutely perfect pick from the President.
As for Ms. Miers, I am working on her nomination as well, and I really can't comment on that. Totally aside from my thoughts on the nomination of this obviously skilled and genuinely smart woman, and speaking solely as the largely uninformed politico that I am, I do have some questions about what informed the President's decision. Is it true that he shied away from any of the "philibustered" prior nominees? Did all of the Katrina nonsense that people blamed on the Administration contribute to the pick of what many consider a stealth pick? If so, does that help him in any way politically? I'm of the opinion that popular politics and actual vote counts are VERY little affected by Article III appointments; even one as important as this. Take it to the Democrats every time. As you said in previous posts, if Clinton, Durbin, Kennedy, Schumer, Obama, Corzine, Feinstein, Boxer, Kerry, Biden, Reid and all the rest of the liberals voted against Roberts, they aren't going to vote for ANY of Bush's picks. Why bother even listening to them? (Why is it again that the most radical and extreme liberals in the entire Party end up in their leadership positions EVERY single congress? Just look at the line-up on the Judiciary committee. It's mind boggling how radical that group of Dems is. Throw in Hilly and John Fitzgerald (oh wait..) Kerry and you'd have the complete "best of" set of the radical liberal collection)
I'm sure you have your thoughts on this stuff; all of us conservatives do. Great post on the Gaza withdrawl, by the way. I hope that you're wrong, but fear that you're not. Keep up the good work man.
Post a CommentAs for Ms. Miers, I am working on her nomination as well, and I really can't comment on that. Totally aside from my thoughts on the nomination of this obviously skilled and genuinely smart woman, and speaking solely as the largely uninformed politico that I am, I do have some questions about what informed the President's decision. Is it true that he shied away from any of the "philibustered" prior nominees? Did all of the Katrina nonsense that people blamed on the Administration contribute to the pick of what many consider a stealth pick? If so, does that help him in any way politically? I'm of the opinion that popular politics and actual vote counts are VERY little affected by Article III appointments; even one as important as this. Take it to the Democrats every time. As you said in previous posts, if Clinton, Durbin, Kennedy, Schumer, Obama, Corzine, Feinstein, Boxer, Kerry, Biden, Reid and all the rest of the liberals voted against Roberts, they aren't going to vote for ANY of Bush's picks. Why bother even listening to them? (Why is it again that the most radical and extreme liberals in the entire Party end up in their leadership positions EVERY single congress? Just look at the line-up on the Judiciary committee. It's mind boggling how radical that group of Dems is. Throw in Hilly and John Fitzgerald (oh wait..) Kerry and you'd have the complete "best of" set of the radical liberal collection)
I'm sure you have your thoughts on this stuff; all of us conservatives do. Great post on the Gaza withdrawl, by the way. I hope that you're wrong, but fear that you're not. Keep up the good work man.
# posted by 
: 10/08/2005 9:09 AM
: 10/08/2005 9:09 AM
