Bork calls Miers nomination a disaster

MSNBC ^ | October 7, 2005 | Tucker Carlson

[Hatteras]

BORK: Now this woman, who has even less of a track record...

CARLSON: None at all, it seems like. But her defenders — flaks from the White House, some of whom we’ve had on the show —

BORK: Flaks, eh?

CARLSON: Flaks, you know, professional spinners.

BORK: I know the word, I just was interested in this. Go ahead...

Heh, heh, heh... Bork might as well just said, "Tucker, you're an @$$."

[BushisTheMan]

So you are just guessing then. So why oppose her if you don't know for sure?

[the gillman@blacklagoon.com]

I'm not necessarily against her. It's just that there are those out there who are known quantities, and in a time when it is most urgent that we have the right pick, we get someone we know nothing about.

Like I said, if she is a Souter the Republic is over.
We'll have a liberal activist court for the next twenty years. Too long to ever come back from.

Right now, we have only two reliable jurists, Scalia and Thomas. She and Roberts have to be the best, and then the next two have to be the absolute best.

I don't buy anything on faith.

[BushisTheMan]

Yes, I've heard that same argument a million times before on these threads. Known qualities versus unknown qualities.

Known qualities of someone who would not be approved, I might add.

And it won't be 20 years...it will probably be before President Bush leaves office. One of them is 85 now I believe or pretty darn close.