Posted on 10/10/2005 2:59:18 PM PDT by quidnunc
Is this a joke? None of these are coherent reasons..
Because, in addition to other reasons, George H.W. Bush appointed David Souter... Why didn't George W. Bush learn this? Conservatives care most about the Supreme Court, because it is an institution that affects the entire country for decades at a time. If anything else, he should not have appointed an unknown for this position.
Yes. In fact we can DEMAND more. We're owed.
If she's confirmed, Harriet Miers could turn out to be the High Court's first justice in a long time to pack heat.
She sounds like a committed defender of the right to keep and bear arms.
More of the same: Except this candidate because Republicans are too scared of a fight and let's just hope for the best.
How would you know, from what I have seen coherence isn't your long suit?
But is she intellectually strong enough to resist the leftist pull of the media/Beltway cocktail set? Anthony Kennedy wasn't.
You sound like a Democrat-voting welfare recipient.
"How would you know, from what I have seen coherence isn't your long suit?"
Babyish, desperate ad-hominem attacks aside... none of these are actual arguments. It reads more like a Letterman top 10 list of jokes. It's not a serious defense of Miers, in fact I don't think I've seen one of those yet. Hmm....
I hope Laura Bush doesn't find out....
Bush knows her. You forget this.
I see the author calls Miers a "constitutionalist" in the title, but offers not once piece of evidence in the entire article to back up this description of her.
In nominating Miers, Bush bypassed a rather large stable of judicial candidates with a strong history of documented conservative philosophy. For what? What is the positive case for Miers?
Many well meaning presidents have offered up "trust me" candidates, who have proven to be disasters. Conservative disgust and mistrust of this nomination is very well founded.
I see a lot of "blaming the victim" directed at conservatives who rightly expected a candidate with a documented history of conservative judicial philosophy.
"But is she intellectually strong enough to resist the leftist pull of the media/Beltway cocktail set? Anthony Kennedy wasn't."
This is all a big myth. The SC judges that turned liberal were never conservative in the first place. They were "trust us" they are conservative picks. Conservative judges don't drift to being liberal and liberal judges don't drift to being conservative.
You're not owed jack, jack. If you don't trust Bush after the nominations he has made to the Federal Bench (not a SINGLE LIBERAL in the bunch!), then you have a perpetual wedgie, and you're beyond help.
As for question 7, it sure is interesting how the pro-Miers camp is using those tactics against those that dare so much as question whether Miers is what President Bush says she is; or against those that question why we have to have a contradicotry blank slate right after Roberts, who was originally picked to replace O'Connor and had enough Senate support for that before Rehnquist passed away, ultimately divided the DemonRATs (not the Pubbies) down the middle as Rehnquist's replacement.
Not to the incoherent...
Would you please point me to a reliable source where I can find this? The only thing I've seen is a report than a brother or friend or somesuch gave her a handgun, but I haven't seen a report confirming that she ever carried.
I knows she's said some pro-2nd-Amendment stuff, but I'm not sure of this other claim.
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.