Brownback no longer silent but still skeptical

As his spokesman noted, Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., greeted President Bush’s nomination Monday of Harriet Miers to the U.S. Supreme Court with “conspicuous silence.” But here is some of what he finally had to say Tuesday: “I have said in the past that I would like a nominee with a proven track record on important issues to all Americans and whose judicial philosophy is well-formed. I am not yet confident that Ms. Miers has a proven track record, and I look forward to having these questions answered.”
Brownback could be key to Miers’ confirmation. If he and other ardent pro-lifers are unconvinced that Miers will get them the swing vote they crave, the nomination could go south — though that seems unlikely.
Posted by Phillip Brownlee

24 Comments

  1. Andy
    Posted October 5, 2005 at 2:07 am | Permalink

    Meiers is a “trust me” nomination from a man who is not showing any recent reason to trust him.

    How long does Bush expect loyalty if he keeps up that kind of crap?

  2. Joe Williams
    Posted October 5, 2005 at 7:20 am | Permalink

    The Eagle needs to get their own blog so they can filter swear words and ban people. Typepad doesn’t seem to have that option.

  3. Ed Friedemann
    Posted October 5, 2005 at 8:08 am | Permalink

    Those of you who complain about taking Zionist/Jews to task, take a good look.

  4. Ed Friedemann
    Posted October 5, 2005 at 8:36 am | Permalink

    Harriet Miers is an evangelical Christian which is a fancy name for being quite insane.

    Even Christians know that.

    Having a confirmed religious lunatic on the Supreme Court is judicial suicide.

    Clear-minded decisions about matters which evangelicals claim to be experts is like putting the rat in charge of the cheese.

  5. Posted October 5, 2005 at 8:46 am | Permalink

    It does show the difference between us and them though, doesn’t it?

  6. Posted October 5, 2005 at 9:21 am | Permalink

    For those just logging on, a moderator just deleted a bunch of posts by our resident disruptor (Puny Augustus) in which Puny using the most vile and profane curse words imaginable posted over other people’s names, including mine.

    He’s a conservative.

  7. TRACY
    Posted October 5, 2005 at 9:22 am | Permalink

    Miers is being placed to help back the American equivalent of the Taliban.Next thing you know Connie will get an appointment to something federal.

    Brownback is certainly acting as if he’ll be running for Pres.He’ll need to get a sense of humor, with all the laughable stuff going on in D.C. now.

  8. TRACY
    Posted October 5, 2005 at 9:24 am | Permalink

    Thanks for that note Sir Gal.I’ve had to avoid commenting because of his verbal abuse in the past.

  9. Ben Huie
    Posted October 5, 2005 at 9:29 am | Permalink

    Thanks galahad. I always find it funny when self-proclaimed Christians do that. I wonder if he kisses his children with the same mouth he spews forth sewage with.

  10. Heckler
    Posted October 5, 2005 at 9:40 am | Permalink

    Now if we can only get a moderator to start deleting posts that don’t fit the subject at hand we might be able to have some meaningfull debate.

  11. CF
    Posted October 5, 2005 at 9:45 am | Permalink

    Heckler, word.

    And now on to the topic.

    Harriet Miers is, of course, impeachment insurance for W. But since she’s advised him on every one of his controversies of the last ten years (Texas Air National Guard scandal, Abu Gharib), I wonder if it’s really the best idea to have her up there testifying under oath.

    As we’ve seen on this blog, the true believers are seething at W, which gives Senate Democrats a real chance to drive a wedge into the GOP. Harry Reid is playing this thing brilliantly. And, frankly, it’s just funny to watch W turn his back on all the Wingnuts who were dying for a constitutional showdown over the SCOTUS.

    Wingnuts, W cares as little about you as he does about liberals like me. Ian Santiago, bless his festering, racist heart, got it right. Bush is for Bush, and the hell with anyone else.

  12. Posted October 5, 2005 at 10:49 am | Permalink

    Oh, goodie, Heck–we get to keep our guns!

    Great, we can use them to shoot ourselves with when there’s nothing left to live for in this country.

    Just a little gallows humor there.

    SCOTUS doesn’t get directly involved with impeachment, but they do rule on whether the president has to give evidence, how much, and what types.

    Remember Nixon’s tapes?

    BushCo. wants to make sure that he’s got a team player when it comes to the blatantly unconstitutional aspects of the NewSpeaked-named PATRIOT Act.

  13. Heckler
    Posted October 5, 2005 at 11:00 am | Permalink

    Galahad

    The reason I look at someones view of the Second amendment closely is to see how many wiggle words and weasel phrases they use. It’s a good indication of their overall view of the constitution. And I’m a freaking gun nut as well.

    “The tree of libery must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants”or something to that affect.

  14. Posted October 5, 2005 at 11:08 am | Permalink

    Yup, Jefferson. I think he must have been insane when he wrote that.

    So you’re saying the Symbonese Liberation Army, Tim McVey, and the Weather Underground were true patriots?

    I don’t think you are. But THEY thought they were.

    That’s the trouble with people and guns . . . God’s always on their side.

    BTW, I’ve got some guns too. I hunt and target plink and occasionally shoot at the trap range.

    I just don’t think guns solve many problems. See, for instance, Iraq . . .

  15. Heckler
    Posted October 5, 2005 at 11:30 am | Permalink

    Galahad

    Man If you got all that from what I said you might want to check into getting some Prozac.

    It’s a little before my time but werent the SLA and Weather Underground basically anarchists and racists with a slight twist of Leninist influence?

    Guns solve plenty of problems, Hitler and some Japanese dude come to mind. When properly used they reduce the population of robbers and rapists as well.

  16. Steven E.
    Posted October 5, 2005 at 11:52 am | Permalink

    Hey Ed,The innoncent pre-school aged children who died as a result of the bombing of the Murrah Building come to mind as victims who were not receiving government paychecks at the time.

    I think your comment was beneath you. I am sorry you said that.

  17. Ray Thomas
    Posted October 5, 2005 at 12:28 pm | Permalink

    Back to the topic at the top…I can see why Brownbeck is not committing on this appointment. The logic (if there is any) totally escapes me.

    Either Bush is very savvy and this is a smart move, or it is way out in left field. Seems almost as absurd as the BOE’s choice for superintendent of schools.

    Have we really stepped into Oz? I missed seeing TOTO….

  18. Heckler
    Posted October 5, 2005 at 12:57 pm | Permalink

    If Miers interprets the constitution as written that’s good enough for me. If she rubber stamps what Scalia says, well that’s good enough for me too.

  19. TRACY
    Posted October 5, 2005 at 1:30 pm | Permalink

    Good job Heck, got it back on point. Thanks.

  20. Ed Friedemann
    Posted October 5, 2005 at 2:01 pm | Permalink

    Steven, Having raised 4 kids, kids are not a part of my point. Big sloppy government is, and the ineffective way its operates.

    The loss of children is always tragic, including those who are now suffering and will be suffering because “government lives too high.”

  21. Heckler
    Posted October 5, 2005 at 2:07 pm | Permalink

    Can we here a round of applause for the moderator?

  22. XXX
    Posted October 5, 2005 at 4:02 pm | Permalink

    Damn, I was in meetings all morning and missed it!

  23. Jed
    Posted October 5, 2005 at 7:34 pm | Permalink

    Hey Joe,Here’s the deal; I’ll gladly quit swearing as soon as the idiots quit giving me reason to swear!

  24. Heckler
    Posted October 6, 2005 at 8:28 am | Permalink

    Phillip

    How about a thread on the latest revelations about Ronnie Earles grand jury shopping, and the fact that the charges he brought in the first indictment were for something that wasnt illegal when Delay allegedly committed them????????…………….Well?

    Again, Sorry about deviating from subject