Posted on 10/03/2005 8:06:26 AM PDT by pabianice
For your edification, here's a sampling of the reaction to Miers' nomination from our friends on the Left. Take two Thorazine and call me in the morning.
=======================================================
* Bottom line: This woman is a Bush loyalist who knows nothing about having a family (i.e. she doesn't even begin to understand the concerns of most Americans because she can't relate to them). She is anti-choice, pro-police power, weak on individual liberties, pro-big-business, and is a stealth candidate with no record to scrutinize.
She is our worst nightmare. She must be filibustered.
Let the Pukes go nuclear in the Senate if they wish. But short of that, we can not allow this person to sit on the Supreme Court.
*
* Reaction to Bush's High Court Nomination
``She has a reputation for being loyal to this president, whom she has a long history of serving as a close adviser and in working to advance his objectives. In an administration intent on accumulating executive power, Ms. Miers' views on and role in these issues will be important for the Senate to examine.'' - Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee
---
``We know even less about Harriet Miers than we did about John Roberts and because this is the critical swing seat on the Court, Americans will need to know a lot more about Mier's judicial philosophy and legal background before any vote for confirmation.'' - Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y.
---
``Harriet Miers is a brilliant legal mind. She is a woman of outstanding character who clearly understands what it means to follow the law. She is deeply committed to public service, and has a distinguished history of professional achievement. It is clear that her past experiences have well prepared her for the honor of serving our country as a Supreme Court Justice.'' - Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas.
``We are concerned about the nomination of Harriet Miers and we demand she answer questions regarding her views of fundamental reproductive and privacy rights. We expect Miers to make clear her views on reproductive rights during the hearing process, and the Senate should not confirm a nominee who is not willing to do so.'' - Karen Pearl, interim president of Planned Parenthood.
---
``With no past judicial experience for the senators to consider, the burden will be on Miers to be forthright with the Senate and the American people. She must outline her judicial philosophy and provide direct answers to questions about how and whether she will uphold fundamental rights, liberties and legal protections on which Americans rely. ... There must be no rush to judgment.'' - Ralph G. Neas, president of People for the American Way, a liberal public advocacy group.
---
``We owe it to the American people to take our time to be sure the nominee will uphold their most basic and fundamental rights. The public demands this from the process, and deserve no less.'' Sen. Barbara Mikulski, D-Md.
---
* The Kennedy/Schumer wing of the party will be painted as nutty loons representative of the liberal fringe of American society. The religious right will bleat in feigned outrage as they set the stage that the woman is not right enough. A moral equivalency will be set up pitting the ultraconservatives in the Democratic party against the far right of the Repubican party. Reason will never enter the debate.
* UPDATE: For an instant, we thought there might be more to Miers's rehabilitation -- Bush mentioned her work with "Exodus Ministries" in his nomination speech. But it's NOT that Exodus ("Freedom from homosexuality through the healing power of Jesus Christ."), it's Exodus Ministries who "encourage ex-offenders empower them to become self-sustaining, productive, Christ-centered members of society." Whew.
* Just another unqualified toadie!
Approve or disapprove, I want the Democrats to drive home the point that Bush appoints unqualified ass-kissers to the highest positions of government.
* This is the one we need to back completely. She must be stopped. There is a very good argument that her nomination risks upsetting the balance between the 3 branches of the federal government. She has no real judicial experience, and her loyalties are clearly with the executive. Can she have the necessary independence from the executive branch? Would she be able to rule impartially on a matter involving the executive? I think the answer is clearly no. Coupled with her obvious lack of experience, lack of qualifications, and apparent fealty to George W Bush and the Republican Party, I think this one's got filibuster written all over it.
* I think what's meant by "the next one" is the next one after we stop Miers. Stopping Miers may just be what Bush wants us to do--because then they can nominate one of the true right wing nuts and Dems will look bad for filibustering two in a row.
* The courageous Democrats will surely stamp up and down - right before they all vote "YES." 10. Bush picked her for two reasons: (4.00 / 2) A) She's an intellectual lightweight, easily influenced. Putting her on the Court with two purportedly "brilliant" Conservatives - Scalia and Roberts - makes her a lockstep vote with them. She may not qualify ideologically as a Right-Wing Conservative, but she can be counted on to vote that way. B) She's his legal fixer, someone who knows where all the bodies are buried. She's accustomed to saving him from sticky legal situations - vide the National Guard records cleansing. She can be counted on to protect him at all costs - and he is going to need the Supreme Court to protect him. The Supreme Court is going to have to rule on whether a sitting President can be indicted when there is no House Judiciary Committee willing to vote for impeachment. The Supreme Court is going to have to issue a raft of rulings on issues stemming from the Fitzgerald indictments, the DeLay case, the entire mess of worms on K Street and in the Congress. Bush is no longer thinking about his "legacy". He's thinking about remaining a free man. This choice tells us that they know that they are guilty and are facing very serious legal consequences. Miers may be all that can keep Bush out of jail, perhaps for treason.
* Confirm now, impeach later I'm inclined to confirm her despite her enormous lack of qualifications. Here's why. The Bush Admin is about to collapse in a pile of scandals, and she'll probably be involved in them up to her elbows. Put her on the Court and flog her repeatedly until the end of 2008 for her involvement in scandals, calling on her to resign (which she won't.) If she's about three years away from politically dying, it's like appointing a 90 year old. I'd vote to confirm Gerald Ford, wouldn't you? Our first reaction would be to vote down whoever Bush appointed, but I think the idiot may have just given us a big present. Of course, all of this can change depending on the hearings. P.S. A single woman of 60? Let's hear the right's buzz about that. "If you [just] wanted to reduce ignorance, you could ... abort every Republican baby in this country, and your ignorance rate would go down."
How are these different from the reactions here at FR?
Here's an out-there theory. I think that Bush might be provoking them into a filibuster of a "kamikaze" candidate, so that he can then nominate a judicial conservative and they will appear hypocritical if they vote that one down also.
Some of those quotes look like they came from THIS forum.
lol....well, if she has no record to scrutinize then how does this poster know so much about her?
You beat me to it. I haven't been this disgusted in a long time. It seems that quite a few people here are just as brainwashed as the moonbats.
They probably did. Many FReepers are DU lurkers and posters.......Rattle the monkey cage every now and then........
Nah, these guys are not that clever. Miers will be hard to filibuster. John Cornyn will go to bat for her in the Senate. Dems will decide they would rather have an older unknown conservative than a younger known one.
Doh! ya beat me to it. Good one.
Would it surprise you that the Moonbats post at both forums? They're nuts.
LOL, knees are jerking all over America.
There are a lot of FReepers and Conservatives who a blistering for a good fight with the left over a judicial nominee. The President does not share their enthusiasm for conflict.
My outraged bleating is not feigned.
Well, seeing how the whackos are reacting makes me feel a lot better about this choice.
I didn't know that there was a designated swing seat. Where do Democrats get this stuff?
<-------- Visit Stingray blogsite for conservative Christian commentary
...who are blistering...
If by "we" you mean the white house instead of people who believe in conservatism, then you are probably correct.
bush could nominate one of their own and they'd turn on him
You may be correct, but it may be the conservatives that vote her down. The first time I heard her name mentioned was yesterday, cannot recall the radio host that did so, but I figured there she is!
I heard today she contributed to Al Gore's campaign!! What is our president doing? Not many of the political pundits are happy.
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.