Posted on 10/14/2005 12:48:30 PM PDT by suspects
THE TOP 10 WORST REASONS TO SUPPORT HARRIET MIERS:
In the past two weeks, Bush loyalists have offered various reasons why rational, thinking people should support the president’s choice of Harriet Miers to the US Supreme Court. Here at www.stopmiersnow.com, we’ve reviewed the most common arguments made on Miers’ behalf and compiled our list of the 10 least persuasive (and/or most obviously idiotic).
If you’re supporting Harriet Miers for the SCOTUS, fine. But if you’re doing so for one of the following reasons, PLEASE re-consider. And if you’re a US Senator giving these reasons, please do you duty to American people: Resign immediately.
#10: BECAUSE SHE’S A WOMAN....
(Excerpt) Read more at stopmiersnow.com ...
Maybe the National Enquirer is right, Mr. President, and you have started drinking again.
When will the anti-Miers crowd realize that regurgitating DU idiocy does nothing to promote their point of view?
#11 Poor spelling?........
Great!
Aw, dirtboy, are you bitter that all of your arguments for Miers made the Ten Worst list?
First of all, that didn't happen here, and second, are YOU happy about seeing an anti-Miers piece ponder whether Bush has started drinking again?
I'm curious as to how her credentials stack up compared to Clarence Thomas. I would have preferred a female version of John Roberts, but if she becomes another Clarence Thomas as far as voting goes, that would be ok. No great, but at least someone who votes conservative.
I can't tell if this is a joke or not. But it seems more like the guy is intentionally making the people who oppose her nomination look bad.
ping
Some here have been accusing the POTUS of treason and socilalism. The drinking charge is mild.
lol
Are you proud of your side echoing the DU "Bush is drinking again" charge?
I wouldn't care if he got piss drunk all day every day, if he didn't spend like a drunken sailor in a Thai brothel.
pretty pathetic when there is a stopmiersnow.com and a confirmmiersnow.com (there probably is or will be at some point).
It's going to committee. She is going to have her say and her day. Get used to it. Let the system work as it is supposed too.
As long as he doesn't create a socialist dictatorship, we'll be fine.
#1
And, finally, the Number One Worst Reason To Support The Appointment of Harriet Miers To The Supreme Court...
"TRUST ME"—President George W. Bush.
Hmmm….out-of-control government spending, faster government growth than under President Clinton, no border security, $300 billion in tax dollars thrown at Hurricane Katrina, the $700 billion drug giveaway program for rich seniors, signing the McCain/Feingold anti-free speech bill after declaring it unconstitutional, no progress on Social Security reform, massive expansion of federal government power into local schools, police, etc.
Then there's George Tenet, Norm Mineta, Michael Brown, Julie Myers…
Trust you? With the Constitution of the Unites States itself at stake, along with the future of my fundamental liberties?
Maybe the National Enquirer is right, Mr. President, and you have started drinking again. But unless the rest of America goes on a bender with you, the Miers nomination is never going to make sense.
"2
2: BECAUSE WE’LL HURT YOU IF YOU DON’T: "The White House is seeking the help of Republican activists in Iowa and New Hampshire to pressure GOP senators with Presidential hopes to support Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers. The effort, coming as the White House seeks to reassure conservatives skeptical about Miers’ qualifications, is largely aimed at turning up the heat on Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas, White House aides acknowledged."--AP
"[Republican senators] are going to turn against a Christian who is a conservative picked by a conservative president and they’re going to vote against her for confirmation? Not on your sweet life, if they want to stay in office."—Rev. Pat Robertson.
Senator, there’s a Mr. Guido "The Snake" and a Mr. Tony "Four Fingers" waiting in a car outside to discuss your upcoming vote on the Miers nomination. They said something about going for a ride…?
Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent, as Isaac Asimov has pointed out, and that includes political violence as well. If the only argument left for supporting Harriet Miers is to keep from getting your legs broken, then obviously the case cannot be made on merit.
#3
#3: BECAUSE HER JUDICIAL PHILOSOPHY WILL NOT CHANGE OVER TIME: "I know her well enough to be able to say that she's not going to change, that 20 years from now she'll be the same person, with the same philosophy, she is today."—President George W. Bush.
WHAT judicial philosophy?
#4
#4: BECAUSE SHE’S "EXCEPTIONALLY WELL-QUALIFIED" FOR THE JOB: "Anyone that knows Harriet Miers knows that she's exceptionally well-qualified to serve on our nation's highest court."—White House spokesflak Scott McClellan.
She attended a second-rate law school and didn’t finish at the top of her class. She’s never been a judge. She’s never handled a single case involving the Constitution. She’s never written an article on a single constitutional issue. She’s never taught Constitutional Law. She’s never been involved in even one public debate involving the Constitution. She’s not a member of any organization involved in debates over Constitutional law, such as the Federalist Society. If she were back in Dallas and a prospective client walked in and asked her to take a case involving a significant constitutional issue, she would refer that client to someone else.
Until the phrase "exceptionally well-qualified to serve on our nation’s highest court" is re-defined to mean "attended Bible study with George W. Bush," there is no way any rational person could use it to describe Harriet Miers.
#5: BECAUSE SHE HAS NO JUDICIAL EXPERIENCE WHATSOEVER: "41 of the 109 justices who have served on the Supreme Court had no judicial experience at all when they were nominated. ...Furthermore, Harriet Miers's background as a legal practitioner [and lack of judicial experience] is an asset, not a detriment. She has spent her career representing real people in courtrooms across America."—Texas Senator John Cornyn.
"Legal observers say appointing a lawyer without judicial experience could bring a ray of sunshine into the traditional court. Those who haven’t worn judicial robes for decades can sometimes connect with the average person in a more meaningful way." —Nashville City Paper.
So the new criteria for the SCOTUS is to be a "regular Joe," or in this case, Josephina? Then why not Larry the Cable Guy? Or Oprah? She certainly has her finger on the pulse of the Great Unwashed.
What’s so annoying about this argument for conservatives is that it’s the same argument we mocked when Senators Feinstein, Schumer and Durbin made it in the Roberts confirmation hearings. Remember when Feinstein wanted Judge Roberts to answer questions "as a father, as a brother, as a husband?" Remember when Durbin pressed Roberts on how we felt about the law, and would he have empathy for the "little guy?" That was a joke, right?
So why are Miers’ supporters using the same punchline?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.