Bork on CNN: Miers "No Relevant Record" and "Should be Rejected", "I Supported Roberts" (Video)

CNN Video ^ | 10-10-2005 | n/a

[Stellar Dendrite]

WOOPS looks like you've seen it already...my bad

[HundredDollars]

I am not rejecting her on ideological grounds. I don't know what her ideology is. I am rejecting her based on the basis of her being unqualified to be a member of the SCOTUS.

I am deeply disappointed with this pick as it betrays my personal values. But then again, I would vote against my own mother if I thought the other candidate was a better choice.

It's not about loyalty. It's about doing the right thing.

I don't expect an honest answer to this, but what would you Bush-Bots have said if clinton nominated his personal lawyer with no constitutional background to the SCOTUS? I think your loyalty to Bush or your quest for power has blinded you, similar to the clinton sycophants.

Please prove me wrong.

[HundredDollars]

I'm supposed to be impressed by his grasp of constitutional law?

Are you impressed with Mier's grasp of constitutional law?

Please elucidate.

[flaglady47]

Looks to me like Spector and Graham are backing Miers and therefore the Prez by default, because they too think she is much more moderate than whom Bush could have chosen. They like Miers because they don't think she's a rightwinger, which makes me all the more wary of her nomination. Don't like her Affirmative Action past stances either. This nomination was a total lemon.

[msnimje]

Did you see what Patrick Leahy said today?

"Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, the Democratic co-chair of the committee, told ABC that he had recommended to the president that he “pick somebody outside the judicial monastery” but that he probably should have added: “And also consider somebody outside the White House compound.”

[msnimje]

Do you think it possible Senator Specter and President Bush made a deal on the campaign trail last year?

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

Even if I agree with you on terms, that's not the way it will be played out everywhere else. It will be considered a rejection on ideological grounds. Besides, why didn't constitutionalism cause Republicans to reject both of Clinton's nominees? Certainly Miers is closer to acceptable they they were(are).

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

I have no loyalty to Bush -- at least not anymore. I haven't really had any for a long time, probably since the signing of CFR. So I am no Bushbot, though I understand your frustration with that.

I do think Miers was a bad pick, but I also think she is too qualified to legitimately reject her. And we will look like big hypocrites if we do reject her. Just my opinion.

[Dont_Tread_On_Me_888]

but I also think she is too qualified to legitimately reject her

Using your logic, it is then OK to elect Hillary Clinton as president.

Look, I don't know why you and your types don't understand this--conservatives have waited years to get a good conservative SCOTUS pick, conservatives voted in Bush twice, conservatives voted in the House twice, conseratives voted in the Senate, conservatives increased the Republicans in the Senate the last election, conservatives were promised we would get a nominee in the mold of a Scalia or Thomas . . .

with all that, Bush betrayed us by not nominating a candidate in the mold of Scalia or Thomas.

Withdraw this pathetic nomination of Miers! Bush has lost leadership ability/credibility with this pick. The conservative community must now guide him.

[TBP]

Bump.

Great work, Judge Bork.

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

I agree with everything you said except the part about withdrawing the nomination. At this point the consequences of not confirming her are jusr as risky as the consequences of confirming her. That's just the opinion of my type.

[Dont_Tread_On_Me_888]

I did play the whole video, and it is refreshng to hear a true Constitutionailst in Robert Bork give us the "No BS truth" about Harriet Miers.

Constrast that to George Bush's lie, in an answer to a question posed to him, that Harriet Miers was "the best available candidate."

After a lie like that, what conservative would EVER trust anything George Bush says again?