Halruaa said:
LOL-- I can't remember where I heard it-- maybe the Daily Show?? but someone said Bush needs to join Friendster and expand on his circle of friends.
Upvote
0
Harriet Miers withdraws
- Thread starter ClaireZ
- Start date
LOL-- I can't remember where I heard it-- maybe the Daily Show?? but someone said Bush needs to join Friendster and expand on his circle of friends.
TeddyKGB
A dude playin' a dude disgused as another dude
- Jul 18, 2005
- 6,495
- 453
- 47
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
A fair point, but misguided. Honestly now, how many of those quotes suggest something along the lines of "Miers is not qualified because she is an evangelical Christian"?Ginny said:
Upvote
0
Texas Lynn
Well-Known Member
- Dec 17, 2002
- 10,352
- 665
- 47
- Faith
- Methodist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Democrat
Sandra Day O'Connor agreed to stay until her replacement is named. That may be a long wait.
If a right winger like Janice Rogers Brown, Priscilla Owen, or Michael Luttig is named it'll be a major fight. That's what the right wants. They may get it. If so I suspect the nominee will be done in by Republican defections, including Specter, chairman of Judiciary. Add Collins, Snowe, Chaffee, McCain, and just one more, maybe Stevens, Domenici, Smith, DeWine, or Voinovich and it's over. Then we'll get a moderate ala Anthony Kennedy (who also got in following two failed nominees).
If a right winger like Janice Rogers Brown, Priscilla Owen, or Michael Luttig is named it'll be a major fight. That's what the right wants. They may get it. If so I suspect the nominee will be done in by Republican defections, including Specter, chairman of Judiciary. Add Collins, Snowe, Chaffee, McCain, and just one more, maybe Stevens, Domenici, Smith, DeWine, or Voinovich and it's over. Then we'll get a moderate ala Anthony Kennedy (who also got in following two failed nominees).
Upvote
0
This whole affair just brought out the worst in the Republican party and was yet another result of the rank hypocrisy so rife within the Republican party right now.
Hypocrisy and The Miers Case
By Mark Shields
Sunday, October 30, 2005; Page B07
...
As John R. Tunis once wrote, "Losing is the great American sin." But Miers, who is undoubtedly a hurting victim in this whole melodrama and deserving of compassion and kindness, is not the loser. No, the losers are those mostly conservative posturers and pretenders who now stand exposed as political hypocrites.
Who said repeatedly some variation of "every judicial nominee and the American people and the president deserve a fair up-or-down vote?" If you answered virtually every Republican senator, especially Sens. Orrin Hatch of Utah, Sam Brownback of Kansas and Bill Frist of Tennessee, you would be more than right.
In addition to that "up-or-down vote," every judicial nominee, according to those same honorable folks, was entitled to a fair committee hearing. Every judicial nominee, it turns out, except Miers. She didn't even get the hearing, let alone "the fair up-or-down vote" she deserved.
One clause in Article VI of the Constitution states, "No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." So, when some quarrelsome Senate Democrats kept asking if and how John Roberts' Catholicism might influence his opinions, the Bush White House turned away such impertinence with a prepared statement: "Judge Roberts has said in previous testimony that personal beliefs or views have no role whatsoever when it comes to decisions judges make." In other words, butt out!
But by October, the no-questions-about-a-nominee's-religious-faith rule had been conveniently repealed so that President Bush, facing "people [who] ask me why I picked Harriet Miers," could answer, "Part of Harriet Miers' life is her religion," while Karl Rove, the man whom Bush calls "Boy Genius," would personally reassure James Dobson, a powerful leader of the religious right, that Miers was "an evangelical Christian" and a member of "a very conservative church which is almost universally pro-life." Religious faith had become a reference and a credential for high office.
"If we're going to give advice and consent, we've got to have a full picture," Brownback said. "We were not asking for documents regarding attorney-client privilege -- or privileged communications," he told CNN. "We were saying, 'Show us some documents of policy issues discussion' so we could get some framework of her policy views."
The Senate is not a rubber stamp, Brownback announced. But Republicans, including Brownback, had scorned and rejected Senate Democrats' requests for similar work from Roberts's time in the White House.
...
Miers does not need to apologize to anyone. She told no lies. The big losers are those on the political right -- both her supporters and her opponents -- whose contradictions and moral relativism were enough to give hypocrisy a bad name.
[source]
Hypocrisy and The Miers Case
By Mark Shields
Sunday, October 30, 2005; Page B07
...
As John R. Tunis once wrote, "Losing is the great American sin." But Miers, who is undoubtedly a hurting victim in this whole melodrama and deserving of compassion and kindness, is not the loser. No, the losers are those mostly conservative posturers and pretenders who now stand exposed as political hypocrites.
Who said repeatedly some variation of "every judicial nominee and the American people and the president deserve a fair up-or-down vote?" If you answered virtually every Republican senator, especially Sens. Orrin Hatch of Utah, Sam Brownback of Kansas and Bill Frist of Tennessee, you would be more than right.
In addition to that "up-or-down vote," every judicial nominee, according to those same honorable folks, was entitled to a fair committee hearing. Every judicial nominee, it turns out, except Miers. She didn't even get the hearing, let alone "the fair up-or-down vote" she deserved.
One clause in Article VI of the Constitution states, "No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." So, when some quarrelsome Senate Democrats kept asking if and how John Roberts' Catholicism might influence his opinions, the Bush White House turned away such impertinence with a prepared statement: "Judge Roberts has said in previous testimony that personal beliefs or views have no role whatsoever when it comes to decisions judges make." In other words, butt out!
But by October, the no-questions-about-a-nominee's-religious-faith rule had been conveniently repealed so that President Bush, facing "people [who] ask me why I picked Harriet Miers," could answer, "Part of Harriet Miers' life is her religion," while Karl Rove, the man whom Bush calls "Boy Genius," would personally reassure James Dobson, a powerful leader of the religious right, that Miers was "an evangelical Christian" and a member of "a very conservative church which is almost universally pro-life." Religious faith had become a reference and a credential for high office.
"If we're going to give advice and consent, we've got to have a full picture," Brownback said. "We were not asking for documents regarding attorney-client privilege -- or privileged communications," he told CNN. "We were saying, 'Show us some documents of policy issues discussion' so we could get some framework of her policy views."
The Senate is not a rubber stamp, Brownback announced. But Republicans, including Brownback, had scorned and rejected Senate Democrats' requests for similar work from Roberts's time in the White House.
...
Miers does not need to apologize to anyone. She told no lies. The big losers are those on the political right -- both her supporters and her opponents -- whose contradictions and moral relativism were enough to give hypocrisy a bad name.
[source]
Upvote
0
Similar threads
