Posted on 10/08/2005 7:02:53 PM PDT by RDTF
Edited on 10/08/2005 9:16:37 PM PDT by Sidebar Moderator. [history]
Scalia is a gentleman.
It makes sense that Bush wouldn't nominate him for Chief Justice, because he's already on the court, and the promotion would necessitate an additional confirmation procedure.
When and if she lets her views be known, which she as of late has not, then you can call for waiting. And if Bork has been reading her dossier and such, why does he need to show restraint? If he's formed an opinion I have no problem hearing it. He's giving us more than she is and I'll bet you more than she will when the hearings start.
Alrighty then...
Most people are not so much passing judgment on HER as they are no her as a nominee. We should be able to verify her judicial philosophy. This "trust me" stuff is nonsense. It may make the Bushbots swoon, but it doesn't work for the rest of us.
But okay, I know the history of your posts enough to know you are no Bushbot. So I apologize for that. But you must admit, there really is such a group in FR. They wear me out.
She hasn't even been nominated for a week. So maybe we can wait and get more information.
And if Bork has been reading her dossier and such, why does he need to show restraint?
Gee, I dunno - to maybe factor in her views instead of engaging in rampant conjecture? I know that's a quaint notion in this day and age, but some folks still think that is a good thing.
If he's formed an opinion I have no problem hearing it. He's giving us more than she is and I'll bet you more than she will when the hearings start.
Why don't you wait until we get more information?
Oh, sorry, that's no fun...
Was Scalia rolling his eyes as he said it?
She, or any other nominee, can sit at that table and say whatever they want. I also like knowing their track record, regardless of what they say to get in. Don't you?
Lol...
The affliction of Bush-Botulism scrambles the brain.
And manners. Scalia appears to be a real gentleman. He says what he thinks on issues in his rulings but is never personally rude.
There are some of those. But most of the folks I see on the pro-Miers camp are asking two things:
Wait until we have more information, and be willing to think outside the box regarding qualifications for a nominee, given how badly the mandarin class has run SCOTUS (and Washington, for that matter). We may decide that Miers is not the right way to think outside the box. But IMO it's also not viable to continue on the path we've taken regarding SCOTUS for the last fifty years - not just with the nominees, but with the role of SCOTUS and the fedgov in general. So I am gonna look at the establishment types with a very large grain of salt as they proclaim Miers to be unsuitable, because they haven't exactly done a bang-up job themselves.
Most people are not so much passing judgment on HER as they are no her as a nominee. We should be able to verify her judicial philosophy.
And once we have more information, let's do just that.
This "trust me" stuff is nonsense.
If you had to pick one area where Bush has thoroughly pushed a conservative agenda would it be spending? No. Education? No. Immigration? HELL NO.
If Bush asked me to trust him in those areas, I'd say show me instead.
But judicial nominations has been his strongest area. So I am willing to take a wait and see attitude. Couple that to the realities of the post-Gang of 14 Senate, and we need to bring a lot of factors to our own personal decisions over th
But okay, I know the history of your posts enough to know you are no Bushbot. So I apologize for that.
Thanks for that. It's been heated all around on this subject, so no hard feelings.
But you must admit, there really is such a group in FR. They wear me out.
They wear me out at times. I often disagree with them. But in this case, I think we do need to wait and see more.
Yeah, you discuss restraint and then call your opponents Bushbots.
Cut the crap.
And all that will come out as well. Right now we have a paucity of information. But that isn't stopping a lot of folks from casting judgement.
Most of the folks who oppose your point of view are saying we need to wait to get more information before casting judgement. That smacks of restraint to me.
Folks on your side of the debate are belittling her legal experience. Making a point from her lack of children. Echoing Dem talking points about cronyism. Calling her another Souter, when Souter was a result of Bush not knowing the nominee well. So Bush knows Miers well - which would prevent the situation that led to Souter - but because he knows her well, it's cronyism.
In other words, your side has acted with little restraint and little intellectual consistency.
"Cut the crap."
After I cut it up, where do I send it? Have an address for me?
Yeah, put it on your doorstep in a paper bag, throw a match in it, and ring the doorbell.
"In other words, your side has acted with little restraint and little intellectual consistency."
Well, we can't help it if we ain't itelagant like you.
OK, I did what you said, now what?
Intellegence has nothing to do with restraint, as Bork demonstrated.
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.