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 knows that it would be improper and out of his place to pass his opinion on a Presidential nominee to the press, no matter who the nominee or what his opinion was. The "I have no impression of her" doesn't mean anything and is not valid in the manner you are trying using it.
Really? Once again, he is acting with restraint. A commodity in short supply over the last week.
The Washington Post normally would not give Scalia the time of day, but with a little conservative blood in the water, they are trolling for Scalia to trash Bush. But Scalia has some stature and some class in a company town which is populated with dolts that have neither.
dirtboy is only asking people to wait for the nominee to have her day in front of the 18 Senators of the Judicial Committee
dirtboy... Sorry to inject myself, but I felt somebody should.... See you another day maybe
Because this too shall pass, like other FR tempests, and the little-minded folks will become known by their deeds and treated accordingly.
Bork is not (unfortunately) a sitting Supreme Court Justice.
And I agree with you, I will wait to pass judgement. Would I have liked Janice Rogers Brown? You betcha! I am willing to wait.
Not calling anybody anything, not voicing an ill-informed opinion on Miers. Just curious - what is the etymology of Bushbot? A non-native speaker would like to know. Thanks in advance.
Many of us have an opinion to share about this important subject. I thought that was what this board was all about. Seems some of you are not only defensive about this but quite sensitive as well. I think our conversation has been civil, and I surely don't feel like it has gone south. If anyone is offended by my input I apologize, but I don't apologize for expressing my opinion.
He's a member of the supreme court. He's not going to pass judgement on a nominee, period. His restraint comes from respect for his office and the separation of powers, not because he doesn't have an opinion. So you wouldn't be able to tell the difference either way.
Or Janice Rogers Brown; or Edith Clement; or Miguel Estrada; or Priscilla Owen; or Emilio Garza; or Richard Posner; or Samuel Alito...
wait for what? exactly what do you expect to be "revealed" from these hearings? Bork was the last nominee to speak openly - everyone else knows the score now, so they don't, and neither will Miers. the hearings no longer serve as a vetting process - that been replaced by the public comments we are seeing now (on FNC just now, Susan Estrich is for Miers), and the one-on-one private meetings that the senators have with the candidate.
its fine to agree or disagree about various aspects of Miers, but we should all be able to agree that we will learn next to nothing from the open hearings - unless she slips up and is candid.
Miers' nomination has divided more Freepers than any other topic I've ever seen on FR. Tolerance is running thin for this reason-personally I didn't see anyting uncivil in your posts.
Really? You call dirtboy a Liberal and a Bushbot and you call that civil.... If anyone is behaving like a Liberal, it is you, no argument, just childish insults
If Miers were not an evangelical Christian, many of the naysayers would be on board.
That is a quality otherwise referred to as "common sense". Like I said, if I have to explain it to you, it probably wouldn't do any good.
Some of you folks are such snobs...
after all when the the Supreme Court was first forum even a common man non lawyer could sit on the Supreme Court!
I think we need at least one common person point of view, she seems to be common in your eyes because she did not attend all of the various Elitist Play Grounds....
The qualifications haven't changed, only in the minds of the eggs heads they think they own the place!
I think it's amazing that Antonin Scalia was approved by a vote of 98 to 0 in the Senate of 1986 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonin_Scalia
but yet David Souter, who is far to the left of Scalia had 9 Democrats voting against him in 1990:
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=101&session=2&vote=00259
and Clarence Thomas, the only Black on the Supreme Court, had one of the closest votes for approval in 1991 (52 to 48)
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=102&session=1&vote=00220
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.