Scalia Didn't Expect Bush to Nominate Him

The Washington Post ^ | October 8 | NAHAL TOOSI / AP

[dmw]

Quotes from dirtboy to me (DMW)

"cut the crap"
"your side has acted with little restraint and little intellectual consistency."

I've been childish and insulting? My "liberal" comment that you are "quoting" on was directed to ShadowDancer, and not addressed to dirtboy. It was a general comment about people with the same view as dirtboy has. It would not be accurate for you to say that I called dirtboy a liberal, because that is not what I did, at least not directly. It is noble that you come to dirtboy's defense, but I think your criticism is off base. None of us need to show restraint on this board regarding our opinions. That is what this board is all about. As I said in an earlier post, if I offended anyone I apologize, but I have no apologies for my stance on this important subject.

[scratcher]

Please leave Janice Rogers Brown here in CA. We need her here. Take Owens...Please! The gays were parading the streets of San Francisco recently .....NAKED!

[MJY1288]

LOL, So you are denying that you were refering to dirtboy when you responded to ShadowDancer's post to dirtboy??? C'mon bud, you are smarter than that, That is a Clintonesque response if I have ever seen one

[GGpaX4DumpedTea]

"I'm beginning to think the folks casting judgement on Miers with incomplete information are more interested in having THEIR views heard instead of hearing those of the nominee."

Well spoken!

[MJY1288]

BTW, before this gets too personal, You have FR mail

[af_vet_1981]

Bork had no problem voicing his opinion of the nominee with little information.

And Scalia is on the SC and Bork is not.

Miers is likely to be on too, barring unfavorable information surfacing.

[af_vet_1981]

If Miers were not an evangelical Christian, many of the naysayers would be on board.

Concur

She would be the first on the current Court, right ?

[XJarhead]

We should be able to verify her judicial philosophy. This "trust me" stuff is nonsense.

I honestly don't understand this reasoning. Are you really saying that the President should choose Supreme Court nominees based on whether people on a message board know her well enough to be confident in her views?

Bush will deserve to get hammered if she turns out to be a bad Justice. But the idea that people who have no involvment in the nomination or confirmation process (us, for example) should be comfortable with a person as a precondition to him/her being selected is just bizarre.

I spent enough time in the military to know that there are sometimes very good reasons for the orders you receive. Now if you have a commander who has consistently screwed up, you might be a lot more nervous about not knowing more details.

But however else Bush has screwed up -- and he's done it on a lot of issues -- his performance in terms of judicial nominees has been excellent. Couldn't ask more, really, about how he handled all those circuit court nominations. So given how he showed that he knew what he was doing there, I'm inclined to at least take a wait and see on Miers. And my arrogance certainly isn't at the point where I can say that a nominee is a bad pick unless I'm personally familiar with her judicial philosophy.

[dmw]

Now that I see you are taking my words out of context, I will need to stop responding to your posts to me. I never denied that I was referring to dirtboy. I said that my post was not directed to him, it was to someone else. I said I did not directly call dirtboy a liberal. It was a general comment I made to people who hold his view of the Mier nomination. You are twisting my words around, and if you are going to do that then it becomes impossible to have a reasonable debate with you. I read your freepmail to me.
However, since you chose to respond to me on the board, I feel it is important that we keep it out in the open, because the issue is not personal between you and me. You came to dirtboys defense, which is fine, but it has nothing to do with you and me. If you have a personal issue with me, freepmail is fine, but not when you interject yourself into dirtboy's and my conversation. Lets call it a night and move on. Thanks!

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

People on this message board? No one knows her. Not the Senators whose job it is to confirm her. Not Scalia, obviously. Not George Will, Paul Jacob, Ann Coulter, Bill Kristol, .....etc.

[MJY1288]

Who was it that said they would rather be governed by the first 535 names in the Phone Book than the 535 members of Congress? Was that William F. Buckley?

Well I feel the same about the SCOTUS, All I want in a SC Justice... is someone who will apply the law based on the original intent of the Framers of our Constitution. I don't want a Right Wing extremest who will legislate from the Bench, no more than I would want a Left winger legislating from the Bench.

If Miers proves to be somebody who will follow that mold, than GWB will be vindicated, if she ends up being another Souter, Than GWB will pay the price for his decision. As far as her being confirmed... Nobody knows right now because we no very little about her. I will wait and see how she handles herself in the Hearings before I judge her

[af_vet_1981]

I concur with your comments with the exception that I would like someone who would "roll back" the Court so that it removes some/most of the damage from the past 45 years of its usurpation of power.

[MJY1288]

OK, I simply copied and pasted your own words, I know you didn't directly post your comment to dirtboy, but you should have, because you were referring to him and you know it.

But I agree... Lets move on!

Cheers

Mike

[MJY1288]

If the Nominee follows the original intent of our Framers of the Constitution, that is exactly what will happen :-)

The SCOTUS can only decide the cases before them, but in many cases they have refused to hear important appeals that concern the countless bad decisions of the past 40 years.

[skr]

Spot on.

[skr]

Bork is not (unfortunately) a sitting Supreme Court Justice.

Those who believe that bearing arms is an individual right are probably relieved he isn't.

[Captainpaintball]

The point is precisely that we cannot pass judgment on her.

But that isn't stopping a whole lot of folks from doing just that.

Like I presume you don't do with Bill/Hillary Clinton, Algore, John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Jimmy Carter, Michael Moore, Al Franken etc.?

[Malesherbes]

Yes, Scalia sets a high standard in everything. I hope he becomes the first man to still be sitting on the SC at age 100.

[Keith in Iowa]

Imagine that. Scalia knows nothing of her, so he won't pass judgement.

It's like Scalia took the words right out of my mouth.

Can I write a concurring opinion? Oh...I just did... :)

[msnimje]

and Clarence Thomas, the only Black on the Supreme Court, had one of the closest votes for approval in 1991

There is nothing more offensive to the Democrats than a Conservative Black Man.