Redstate

I'm not an editor but that seems rather border-line to me.  IMO the profanity rule isn't just to stop the site from being blocked by filters at work, it's to try to promote a general air of civility and to not provide fodder for the opposition who trolls in here looking for ammo.

Please find a more constructive way to express your discontent.

When has George W. Bush ever let you down in area of judicial appointments?

Yes, he has disappointed in many other areas. But he get's a A+ for me in this area.

The fact that he gets to nominate a born again Evangelical, who from what we know about her, will probably vote with Scalia and Thomas 90% of the time. And this without spending any kind of political capital in a confirmation fight, thereby saving all his ammo for the Stevens/Ginsburg seat.

Now that sounds like great strategy to me.    

Still - coming from the ID "I J Reilly" casts it in an (. . searching for most innocuous description . . ) interesting light.

George Bush has disappointed me 100% of the time with his Supreme Court appointments.

People are acting like John Roberts is a confirmed conservative.  He is not.  We still do not know what he will be like.  He is still a stealth candidate if he is conservative at all.

Bush is trying the "stealth" candidate again -- picking someone the Senate will not have conservative material on AS IF BEING CONSERVATIVE IS A BAD THING.

Did you miss her support for gay "rights"?  

She might be pro-life, but that emphasis is still on MIGHT!

He refuses to nominate somone who is EXPLICITLY pro-life, which is tantamount to ceding that the pro-life cause can not be defended in the Senate.  We did not work for the GOP so long for someone who MIGHT be pro-life and MIGHT be a constructionist.  By putting up someone AGAIN whose keeps their views quiet, Bush is further marginalizing pro-lifers.

Has been edited as it is wholly unacceptable and if you do it again I will personally ban you.

You're a really tough guy to do it personally, but I wasn't aware that the word was profane.

Reading other commentary I see a lot of reasoning saying that Bush needed a safe nominee in order to help the GOP do well in the 2006 elections.

To me that reasoning is completely backwards.  

We do not nominate people to the Supreme Court in order to win elections.

We win elections IN ORDER TO GET GOOD PEOPLE ON THE SUPREME COURT.

And I understand the sentiment, but it's an insult to a heck of a lot of commenters here. Tempers are up; God knows mine is. We all need to back off a bit.

You don't like how he is doing the job you entrusted him to do. Too late. You have 4 practical options.

1. Put a Kerry/Edwards bumper sticker on your car so people will think you voted for them.
   
   
2. Resolve never to vote for GWB again.
   
   
3. Ask future POTUS candidates to name who they will select prior to voting for them.
   
   
4. Run for President, win and pick who you want while a bunch of the people who voted for you decide you're a ____.

The impractical option is throwing a multi-day hissy fit.

Actually, I have way more options than that.  One is to campaign, blog, and argue against all of the issues that in the past I have shut up about because I did not want to weaken Bush when it came time to appoint SC judges.

If you want to resort to puerile language like that, you should try Kos's site.

Is conniption a better word for you?

for the Republicans and the Democrats.  I'm a Liberal through and through, but am addicted to this site as a way to understand the thoughts of the other side.

After reading this post, I'm thinking that maybe Miers will being us all to one page. The right is worried she's not conservative enough, while the left is worried she's still TOO conservative.  And while, I will admit, it was slightly satifying to gloat at the first rash of nervous Republican comments, I'm past that now. This drains me and depresses me, as it does many of you. And just maybe, for the first time in 4 years, a common emotion by the majority of the country will prompt change.

Just trying to find a positive... for all of us.

Sugar coated this decade is not.  You see it in the DEMs; you see it in the GOP; you see it on TV.

Seems that everyone is ready to come out of their respective closet and declare themselves and let the chips fall.

Most conservatives don't have any problem at all trusting the President to have made the right decision. They would just rather have the information available to know that he made the right decision regardless of whether he says he did or not.

not that you should care, but it suggests that the Bush presidency and the resulting messes it's created, were in many ways as unpalatable to you as they were to us (suggesting the only thing that seriously divides the nation is SCOTUS), and that had the GOP faithful not turned a blind eye to his other follies because they saw this as their best shot at changing SCOTUS, they might have actually held Bush's feet to the fire on spending, Homeland Security, IRAQ, etc., along the way.

It's maddening from our point of view that you were so worried Bush might not give you the Justice you wanted you let yourselves be treated by him like a member of his staff, afraid to deliver bad news, for fear you'd lose favor.

Seriously...this blows my mind.

Fear not, there are plenty of conservatives and republicans who feel Bush has done a good job, promoted conservativism, protected the nation, and generally been right on a great number of things. There are plenty of conservatives who were not just biting their tongues while awaiting a nominee. There are plenty who give not one shred of credibility to the ridiculous and inane Bush-bashing hysteria promoted by lefty loons the last few years.

You may put your mind at un-blown ease. There is simply no truth in the notion that the only thing that seperated you from us was the next SCOTUS nominee.

(hint: I wrote "the only thing that seriously divides the nation is SCOTUS").

but good to know all the same

Of course, if you're gonna be that harsh about it, perhaps you'll be so kind as to compare and contrast your assertion that "plenty" of Republicans feel Bush has done a "good" job against the lastest poll numbers.

Did you miss that was in 1989, and all she said was that they deserve the same civil rights?  

Are you suggesting they shouldn't be able to VOTE?

Keep in mind, gay marriage wasn't even being discussed back then, much less in Texas politics.

Are you sure you're opposing her based on facts?  (It doesn't appear that way.)

We worked for Bush, defended him to friends and co-workers when he did stupid things, blogged defenses for him and his people, and generally remained loyal -- all for this moment.

Excuse me, but you seem to think that ONLY those of you all riled up about this busted your tails for Bush and the GOP.  Well, you're flat-out wrong, and it's unbelievably self-centered for you to assume such a thing.  

Think about it.

was posted HERE AT REDSTATE a couple of months ago by Erick:

Third party sources are now telling me that the John Paul Stevens rumor is true and that the White House is now planning for a third vacancy, but not until the end of the year. Third party sources, who I treat as credible, say that Stevens has begun taking actions in his personal life to make arrangements for personal affairs. It is presumed that Stevens is taking steps to retire. A separate third party source tells me that Ginsberg is not expected to retire, as her health is fine. Stevens has reportedly sent signals that he will retire once replacements for both O'Connor and Rehnquist have been confirmed.

One last bit. I'm told conservatives in Washington are now nervous that with two retirements to fill it will be harder to fill the court at once with multiple conservatives.

Update [2005-7-8 14:42:34 by Erick]: My monkey wrench theory: If O'Connor is gone and Rehnquist is gone, it makes sense for Stevens to go too as it would give the Democrats a much better rallying cry to prevent the President from stocking the Supreme Court with conservatives. Say hello to Justice Gonzales.

We didn't get Gonzales, we got a pro-life version of him, minus the affirmative action record and minus the "pro-torture" record (as the left would shriek).

Say hello to Justice Luttig/Alito/Rogers-Brown/Jones...

civil rights as any citizen? That's all the question asked. Orin Hatch agreed. It did not address special rights. It was a BS drudge 20 pt headline.

In the next question she OPPOSED repeal of Texas's sodomy law!!

How is that harsh? I'm merely stating a fact, and asking that people be reasonable with their statements. It's simply silly to suddenly think that all along all the conservatives have been hiding a secret hate for George for the sole purpose getting a particular nominee. I don't need any "poll" numbers to support a general term like "plenty" that is patently obvious on the face of it.

To imagine such a vast conspiracy of silence is preposterous.

but if you're gonna parse "harsh" so thoroughly, you might want to not waive off "plenty" as if it were universally understood.

In particular, what does plenty mean in this context? I mean, I can see different measures of that, including:

1. Are there enough Republicans who think Bush has done a good job to comfort those with Congressional races in 2006 to have him campaign with them, let alone strengthen the majority?
   
   
2. Are there enough Republicans who think Bush has done a good job to re-juice his Social Security reform?
   
   
3. Are there enough Republicans who think Bush has done a good job that he could convince us to invade Iran?

etc.

So if Erick is right about Stevens retiring at the end of the year, this might confirm my theory (shared by Spectator Girl) about President Bush trying to slip a pro-life nominee approved by Harry Reid into SCOTUS quickly now, without a bruising confirmation fight, knowing that people on both sides of the aisle are distracted with rebuilding after Hurricane Katrina.

If Miers is solidly pro-life (which I believe she is), her confirmation doesn't yet allow Roe to be overturned, since the Kennedy vote is doubtful even if we can count on Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Miers.  

But a Stevens retirement (and his replacement by a solid conservative) next year could tip the SCOTUS anti-Roe. By then, Katrina will be old news, if the Iraqi elections go well, some of the troops will probably be coming home, and it will be an election year for 33 senators--the perfect time for President Bush to name a conservative judge WITH a paper trail and provoke a filibuster/nuclear option showdown in the Senate--with an election coming up, with people paying attention.  

This could also pose a major problem for Hillary Clinton: she is up for re-election next year--does she pander to her New York ultra-liberal base and filibuster, or try to move to the "center" for the 2008 Presidential election?

Right now, polls show that Hillary would lose BIG to either McCain or Giuliani, although from a SCOTUS point of view, a President McCain would be MUCH better than a President Giuliani. Putting Hillary in this bind in 2006 might force her into a tough choice, and if she filibustered a conservative nominee, this could lead to another four years of a Republican presidency, with more SCOTUS nominations. It's possible that Bush 2004 / McCain 2008 could leave SCOTUS with a 6-3 or 7-2 conservative majority!

I seriously believe that both sides wanted to avoid a SCOTUS fight right now--what would the vast majority (on both sides of the aisle) think if Louisiana and southern Mississippi lay in shambles for months while the Senate got tied up arguing endlessly over one judge?

Harry Reid (from a purple state) has probably figured out that judicial obstruction doesn't work for Democrats. They had a slight majority in 2001, blocked nominees in the Judiciary Committee, then lost two seats and the majority in the Senate. In 2003, they filibustered appellate nominees, and lost 4 more seats in 2004, including the master of filibuster, Tom Daschle.  

So Harry Reid offered to confirm Miers, and Bush, knowing that Miers was reliably conservative and had no paper trail that could be nitpicked to death in the Senate, decided to get the fourth anti-Roe vote the easy way, saving the fight for later, when the stakes would be higher, and some Senators would have to face the voters.

As someone else posted, Bush is playing for the long term, and knows what he is doing. This is NOT the critical SCOTUS pick--the next one is! Let's stick with him now, and we'll have our big Senate / SCOTUS fight next year, when it really counts.

A blood battle right before the elections will have the base far more fired up than one a year before the elections.

I was offering an explanation of many conservative's thinking.  If you assume that my use of "we" implied that conservatives and people who worked for Bush are the same people -- well, that's your grammatical error, not mine.

I think that's a fair point.

I did and do complain about Bush's errors in border security, the budget, etc.  (Note that I said, "put up with" and not "shut up about.")  But I still supported and defended him when people levelled accusations against him in general or on other issues.

After this I may well decide, "Why bother?"

that he WILL retire in time for that, and also that certain conservatives will have gotten over the Miers hysteria.

Kinda funny how some (a few that aren't worth listening to or debating) say Miers is "too old," when Stevens is easily old enough to be her father!

It's not a "grammatical" error.  But if you WANT to go there, I'm ready.  Just sayin'.

Frankly, I'm tired of hearing "we elected him," "we worked for him," etc., and "he let us down."  

If your implication is that we who support the nomination) don't count as "real" conservatives, my friend, you are grievously incorrect.

conservatives and people who worked for Bush

That would be me.  And plenty of others who support the nomination.

Did Bush promise to name a specific person or to name a person from George Wil's approved list?

What is this moment? Was it just to reward particular people? Or to elect the man that hold the world's record in appointing conservative justices to courts?

There is no crisis unless the goal was personl and not on principle. H epicked a conservative that Bill Kristol doesn't know?

Bill, Geeoge, et al  you guys didn't know a lot of great judges Bush appointed that you love now, and his main helper in the  endeavor was

Harriet Miers

Someone is talking strateg(er)y, because there seems to be an acute lack of long-term, strategic thinking in most of the Miers posting around here.

I don't know where your hostility is coming from, but allow me to reciprocate.

This is much simpler than you are making it. You were appalled that "conservatives" were lying all this time and actually hated Bush as much as you. I am telling you that's not the case. I'm not going to sit here and go back over the last several years of discussions at redstate for you. You have a browser same as me. You want to find conservative support for Bush policies look back through the thousands upon thousands of posts at this website chronicling the very thing.

Don't step up and suddenly say no one ever supported Bush and expect me to go back and link you up to the thousands of contrary posts. I only need one link to do that: redstate.org

So get real. Your pretense at being "frightened" by this fantasy that republicans have been pretending at liking Bush all this time is transparent. Contain your glee. You weren't right when you Bush-bashed. Seeking validation here is not only silly, it's futile.

is he's still the president

(I have this odd genetic defect...I must stick up for anyone who's got a majority against them, unless of course they're evil, but I don't think Bush is evil...not pure evil anyway).

All joking aside though. It's not supposed to be easy. Our system was designed to maintain a tension that kept people in line. The nation needs Bush to be strong for the same reason it needs the opposition to be strong...so it can move forward confident that the system is working, our rights are protected, all sides were considered, etc.

What I fear more than a strong Republican President is a vaccuum of power (I'd prefer a strong Democrat, but Hillary's got this pesky Senate race to get through first. ;-p). I'm beginning to worry that he'll just hole up in Crawford and let Cheney (or whomever) run the show completely.

first I'll concede that I take a bit of pleaure in seeing others admit what I suspected was the case...so I'm human. It does more to restore my faith in this country than lots of other things I've witnessed lately though, so in that way it's good.

Bottom line for me is I believe in balance. There hasn't been enough for a while, and recent developments help me relax a bit (though it's not like the Dems have a majority anywhere, so it's more relief than glee you're sensing). I have done my share of Bush-bashing, it's true, but I'm not looking for validation as much as common ground via the details (i.e., which times when krempasky or Rielly supported Bush do they now regret?...where else do we possibly actually agree?). I'll stand on my credentials here. I supported Edwards in the primary because I felt he had the best shot at uniting the nation. Then I argued tirelessly for Bush to live up to his promise to unite the nation. That's actually important to me.

But I didn't say I was "frightened" ("blows my mind" connotes "is beyond my comprehension" where I come from).

she certainly did oppose the repeal of it.

Also, from the Washington Times:

Asked in the questionnaire if qualified candidates should be denied city employment because they are homosexual, Miss Miers said it was her belief that "employers should be able to pick the best qualified person for any position to be filled considering all relevant factors."

    She also said she saw "the AIDS illness as a serious total community problem" and underlined the word "total."

    Mr. Minnery yesterday said Focus on the Family had no problem with the answer since "AIDS was a very important and new disease back then."

Next?

The war you want already happened. Do you remember filibuster reform?

Do you remember how it went?

Do you remember that the same guy who pushed and manuvered campaign 'finance reform', who lied until it got passed, led the gang of 14 into killing filibuster reform?

We have a majority in name only when it comes to the Senate.

The other thing you need to wake up and smell the coffee on is that where judges are concerned, this President has done at least as well as Reagan, and may be doing better.

I don't know if you have a mouse in your pocket, but I think you need to be careful about the use of 'we' and condemning this President.

Frankly I ask you who else in the present political environment could have gotten us to where we have grown majorities in three elections in a row, where we are getting even as much as we are getting?

You talk of loyalty, and I agree loyalty is important. But loyalty runs both ways.

And if you destroy the good over a fantasy desire for perfect you, not W are the disloyal one. And you are being disloyal to us all, not just him.

What a lovely sermon.  Sadly, it's very wrong.

Bush has hinted, suggested, and flat-out stated that he would pick justices in the mold of Thomas and Scalia.  He has not done so.